Walter Myers recently posted a story on this site titled “Personal Thoughts on Scott Baugh’s Run for the 48th Congressional District.” In the article, Myers makes many inaccurate statements, and in my opinion, inaccurate comments or implications about myself and Scott Baugh. I am the person appointed to the 71st Assembly District Central Committee in 2011 who Myers said “had not been involved in or served in the party in the slightest.” To set the record straight, he are the actual facts:

1. I was appointed in January 2011 to replace Jack Anderson, not John Williams as Myers states. John Williams was not on the Central Committee in 2011 as he had finished 10th in the 2010 June election. That means that Myers could not have been Williams’ alternate in 2011 since he was not on the Committee. Jack Anderson was from Mission Viejo and he moved out of California following his June 2010 Central Committee election, opening a spot of the Committee. Scott Voigts, a friend and fellow conservative, approached me and asked me if I was interested in seeking appointment in Anderson’s place. Voigts knew of my conservative roots, and I was from Mission Viejo (as Anderson was). Voigts believed Mission Viejo needed representation on the Central Committee because of the size of the city in the district. With Voigts’ help, I launched a mini-campaign where I went to the sitting Committee members and made my pitch for why I should be appointed (the sitting members were to vote to appoint Anderson’s replacement). Apparently, I made a better argument as I won on a close vote over Myers. I also ran for election in 2012 and won a seat to remain on the Central Committee, finishing 6th out of 22 candidates (Myers finished 17th out of 18 candidates in his race that year).
2. I was involved a bit more in the party than Myers states. At the time of my appointment, I was involved in the Republican party on several fronts. I was active in the CRA. I helped defeat a ballot-box initiative in Mission Viejo that would have severely restricted landowners’ ability to develop their land. I attended several fundraisers for local and state candidates. I was active in local influential political groups like Family Action PAC and Atlas PAC. I was also involved in the campaign for a Mission Viejo City Council candidate. While I do not care how Myers styles my political experience, I think most would agree that this qualifies as more than not being involved “in the party in the slightest.”
3. Contrary to Myers’ implication, Scott Baugh had nothing to do with my appointment. I did not even meet Baugh until after I was appointed. As I said, I took the time and effort to explain to the sitting Committee members why I felt like I should earn their vote. I did enough to warrant the appointment over Myers.

Those are the facts, that cannot be changed or modified, no matter how hard Myers tries. These are my opinions on the rest of Myers’ post:

1. Myers’ intimation that Baugh is racist is sad and unsupported, based on my experience. I was on the Committee when the Lincoln Club and OCGOP teamed up for an outreach to registered Democrat Latinos in Santa Ana. Baugh consistently lauded the program and made sure to recognize all of us who walked precincts at the Committee meetings. Over the years, I came to know Baugh better. He consistently offered me support and advice, and without his leadership, the party would never be in the place it is now. His fundraising and support for true conservative candidates cannot be challenged. I am glad that the party continues under the excellent leadership of Fred Whitaker, and I hope that outreach to all voters, regardless of color, gender, etc. will continue to be one of the party’s primary efforts going forward.
2. Myers’ ad hominem attacks on Jon Fleischman and Marcia Gilchrist are irrelevant and odd. Fleischman has been one of the most staunch conservatives we have in the party and Gilchrist was always pleasant during the time I served with her on the Committee. Myers’ singling out of these two smacks of pettiness and has no place in his post, or anywhere else for that matter.
3. Myers is better than his race-baiting post. Following my appointment, I met Myers a few times at Family Action PAC meetings, and other meetings. I found him to be a pleasure to talk to, and dedicated to bringing more minorities into the conservative fold. That makes his remarks on race all the more disappointing. According to Myers, he should have garnered the Committee appointment over me simply because he is black and I am white, not based on our conservative credentials. This is not a conservative view as we believe people should be judged based on their merits, not the color of their skin. His passive-aggressive attack on Baugh is equally troubling. Myers takes pains to state he is not branding Baugh a racist, but the implication in his post is clear. Again, that is not the way conservatives should act. True conservatives care about smaller government, lower taxes, national defense, the rights of unborn babies, etc. Race is not an issue because true conservatives are color-blind. I have seen nothing from Baugh to indicate that he is anything but a true conservative.

I did not win re-election to the Committee in 2016 and I am grateful for my 6 years’ served where I had the opportunity to help the party and make a lot of great friends along the way (many of the same singled out by Myers and I agree, they are outstanding people). It is sad that Myers has apparently been nursing these wounds so many years later. I just wish he had chosen to address them with Baugh personally, rather than use his bully-pulpit on here to make unfounded, and false accusations.

I have done considerable research to make sure my facts are accurate. However, I am far from infallible, so if I have made any mistakes, I welcome the opportunity to address them.