"The fairest blog in all the land" • • • Roquemore: 11 miserable years is quite enough
I never understood by Fuentes hoisted himself on the college district since he had no love or respect for public education and such disdain for those of us who dedicated our lives to it. It was like were some kind of consolation prize when he was ousted from his leadership position with the county GOP. Then to see board members cower in response to him. Shudder, shudder.
"I never understood [why] Fuentes [foisted] himself... It was like [we're] some kind of consolation prize..."Given your skill with the written word, I'm guessing that you "dedicated" your life to public education as a janitor, not in the classroom. Shudder, shudder. Or maybe you're the VPI.You also flatter yourself. Fuentes "hoisted" himself on the college district several years before stepping down as county party chairman. The district is no "consolation prize."
Hmmm, early morning typos aside, I think 7:05 makes some good points. Many thought that the county GOP was trying to move Fuentes OUT before they actually got him to do so. The college board was part of that effort. Everyone knew how much Fuentes and his ilk were beginning to hurt the party once OC population began to change.Dontcha love how 8:11 assumes "janitors" can't spell or type? What a revealing "insult."
8:11 makes the assumption that professors can use words and contractions appropriately, at least more so than can janitors. If not, you profs aren't quite as special as you think.
Back to the matter at hand - Tom Fuentes: arrogant and petty, willing to use others to forward his own and others' self-interests, hypocrite. Not a nice man.
Fuentes joined the board in mid-2000, several years before he was "ousted." My guess is that Fuentes sought public office but feared the kind of scrutiny that attends running for a major office, and so he took the opportunity to be appointed by the obsequious wannabes on our board, which, at the time, included Don Wagner, Nancy Padberg, John Williams, and Dave Lang--each of whom ran for office (beyond the trustee gig) since then. Probably, Fuentes waited for a nice appointment to higher office by Prez Bush, but he pissed off the Bushies and lots of Cal Republicans for well-known reasons. That's why he got those meager appointments. He likely felt that he had been discarded by his own party. Pretty sad saga, really.
Those reasons that he pissed people off may be pretty well-known, but they're not known at all by me. What are they?
12:09, Gustavo Arellano explained how Fuentes pissed off the Bushies, et al., back in 2005, during Fuentes' "Spanish Adventure":•2002: While the Bush administration backed Richard Riordan's campaign for the Republican nomination in California's governor race, you and other conservatives successfully got the nomination for Bill Simon. You told conservative columnist Bob Novak that Republicans who support moderates are "whores." The move infuriates the Bushies: from that point on, any Orange County campaigning and fund-raising happen without you.•2003: While the rest of the state GOP rallied around replacing Governor Gray Davis with Arnold Schwarzenegger, you ordered local GOP staffers to remove 5,000 "Join Arnold" signs from county party headquarters. A week before the recall election, Schwarzenegger held a thousands-strong rally at the Orange County Fairgrounds. He did not invite you onstage.•Feb. 28, 2005: You persuaded four colleagues on the Board of Trustees to cancel Saddleback College's summer study-abroad program to Spain because the country had pulled its troops fromIraq. The decision drew national ridicule and outraged the locals; under heavy pressure, the SOCCCD board rescinded your decision on March 22 by a 5-2 vote. And, again, Latinos laughed at the GOP.
I'm somewhat annoyed that the LA Times obit didn't mention Tom's "service" to the SOCCCD or any of the negatives associated with his tenure of office (an interesting term, given his hostitility to tenure for others). What of his: nepotism, appointment of incompetents for Foundations, deanships, chancellorships or attempted appointments to vacant board seats; or of the many lawsuits to which he was a defendent because of his views? Did someone persuade the obit writer NOT to include that information? Or was she really that ignorant? Doesn't the LAT have a morgue she could have consulted for a more balanced picture? Or was she afraid to speak ill of the dead. I'm not--ding, dong. . . .
If you have a view or position, approach it as something that ought to be supported with reasons. If you can’t do that, read elsewhere.