Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

Jon Fleischman

Duf’s choice of words – did “we” really mean “me”?

Today in the Sacramento Bee, my friend, State GOP Chairman Duf Sundheim was quoted as follows after emerging from a closed-door, executive sesison of the California Republican Party Board of DIrectors, which included Governor Schwarznegger:

"I think that issue has been put to rest," Sundheim said of the Kennedy matter, after the governor’s session with the state GOP board in a conference room at the Hyatt Regency that lasted about an hour. "He made it clear she is there to implement his policies. She’s totally committed to that, and we support his decision."

Assuming that Duf was quoted correctly, I am struggling with the big question of who is the "we" that "support his decision" to hire Democrat Susan Kennedy. 

The members of the Board of Directors, I believe, have been done a disservice here.  It is clear to me from talking to a number board members, who agreed to be silent after the meeting, that they feel like they have been put in an awkward position (for some, that is putting it mildly).  Apparently the agreement for everyone to keep ‘mum’ was abused, willfully or not.  You see, I know for a fact that the board did not express support for the hiring of Ms. Kennedy.  Out of deferene to the confidential nature of some of my conversations, I cannot elaborate on what did happen in that meeting.  But none of the board members to whom I have spoken support the Governor’s decision to hire Susan Kennedy.  Not one.

But for the Chairman to walk out of a room and characterize about The Party, or the Board,  that "we" support the Kennedy appointment draws one to conclude that he means the ‘royal’ we – which is to mean that Duf, as an individual, supports her appointment…maybe.  Sometimes we get caught in front of a camera, or pinned by a reporter, and what should have been "We support the Governor," becomes "we support his decision" (to hire Susan Kennedy).

The Party issued a rather non-specific statement after the meeting, which was sent to the entire State Party membership.  Perhaps the Chairman should have used that statement when talking to the media about the meeting.  While the statement was deliberated vague, and did not say the party opposed her being hired, it didn’t tilt the other way, and say, as the Chairman did, that the issue is over and that the party "supports" the Governor’s decision to hire her.

Trying to craft out a pro-Arnod/anti-Susan Kennedy position isn’t easy.  At least I am not having an easy time of it.  This doesn’t help.  I wish the Governor, whom I admire, had NOT put his loyal Republican supporters in this awkward position.