What should a reader think about a newspaper which publishes a reprint of an article but omits a vital detail, one revealing that a national environmental organization has been fundamentally corrupted by money?
How ethical is it that the San Francisco Chronicle left out the fact that the $100 million donation of David Gelbaum to the Sierra Club came on the condition that there be no mention of immigration as a negative environmental influence? Los Angeles Times, Oct 27, The Man Behind the Land"] As the original article revealed...
But [Gelbaum] said Pope long had known where he stood on the contentious issue. "I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."
The Chronicle left out any mention of the contentious Sierra Club elections where immigration realists have sought to address the issue. Board candidate and former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm asked about the shadowy funds,
"Is this foreign money? Is it money that comes with special obligations? I would want to know I'm not running a laundry or being a front group for an entity that doesn't have the best interests of the United States at heart."
But San Francisco Chronicle readers do not learn these facts. How fortunate for the Sierra Club, which has its national headquarters in that city.
Steve Sailer wrote:
"David Dreier survives KFI rabble-rousers John and Ken's Political Human Sacrifice, but the California Republican Congressman's 54-42 margin of victory is the smallest of the 50 or so incumbents in hideously gerrymandered California."
This got me thinking.
In case I have been reticent with my opinions, I was rather hoping (willing to sell my soul) that Congressman Dreier would lose his re-election bid. Well, not lose so much as have him pillaged like a ten year old with a Twinkie on Sloppy Joe day at school.
Whatever the will of the people, of course.
This was a slim victory for Dreier as far as the number of votes was concerned but what about the blaring wake-up call that accompanied that vote?
Who could challenge a 12-term Republican Congressman and Chairman of the House Committee on Rules, with a near limitless war chest, and even make a dent?
The answer is not many, at least not many before this year.
His opponent was Cynthia Matthews, an openly gay, environmental activist who just happens to be, and I am not afraid to say it, a liberal.
To borrow a Bushism, she prit near beat him.
Sailer made a great point when he informed us that Dreier's "margin of victory is the smallest of the 50 or so incumbents."
Let us also look at the last few election cycles:
2004
Cynthia M. Matthews Democratic 92,665 42.8%
David
Dreier Republican
116,218 53.7%
2002
Marjorie M. Mikels Democrat 49,862 33.5%
David Dreier Republican 94,907 63.8%
2000
Janice M. Nelson Democrat 81,804 39.9%
David Dreier Republican 116,557 56.9%
1998
Janice M. Nelson Democrat 61,721 39 3%
David Dreier Republican 90,607 57.7%
1996
David Levering Democrat 69,037 37.0 %
David Dreier Republican 113,389 60.7 %
One of the most powerful Republicans in one of the most conservative seats in California faced a liberal environmentalist, gay woman and she almost ran him over.
What he really encountered was a disenchanted, conservative electorate willing to trade all other conservative principles for immigration reform.
At this rate, the next candidate to challenge David Dreier could be an angry Nazi youth with a rap sheet of felonies that would make Jeffrey Dahmer say damn! Yet, eager to end illegal immigration, he would be a shoe-in.
This somehow makes me feel better. Slightly nervous, but better.
