Exclusive: Sexual Harassment at Family Research Council

By Evan Gahr

The Family Research Council, arguably the premiere Christian Right organization in Washington,  has been quietly sued by a woman who was fired after she complained about repeated sexual harassment by her supervisor.

The lawsuit,  filed last year without any public notice in U.S. District Court in Washington by Moira Gaul, charges the Family Research Council with illegal retaliation under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Gaul was fired just months after she filed a gender discrimination complaint against the Family Research Council with the District of Columbia  Human Rights Commission because of the sexual harassment

The Family Research Council claims Gaul was fired for budgetary reasons and poor performance, including the horrific offense of having once turned in a time slip late.  When was the last time you heard about someone fired for that?

Depositions for the case and mediation were held this summer. Both sides have moved for summary judgment. The latest filings for the case are due December 14.

Gaul had a stellar career at the Family Research Council and amassed a perfect employment record until her run-in with her supervisor, a prominent figure in the anti-abortion movement.

She was hired in March 2005 as an abstinence coordinator and later promoted to Director of Women’s and Reproductive Health, where she focused on abstinence education but was also quoted widely in the media on the controversy over the HPV vaccination for young girls and abortion.

According to Gaul, the harassment started in February 2007.  With the behavior ongoing, she finally filed a gender discrimination complaint--you can’t file for sexual harassment--with the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission in January 2009.

In that complaint Gaul says that the Family Research Council’s Director of the Center for Human Life and Bioethics “pressured me to attend parties” sent  mails addressed “hi cutie” and “referred to the use of birth control pills by young women as  ‘whoring around.’” In general, “his attitude towards me and other women was rude, belittling and at times angry.”

According to multiple news accounts, the Director of the Center for Human Life and Bioethics during the time that the sexual harassment was alleged to take place was William Saunders, a prominent anti-abortion lawyer.  Saunders goes by "Bill" and court papers filed by the Family Research Council refer to Gaul's supervisor as "Bill S."

According to the lawsuit, the Family Research Council quickly retaliated against Gaul following her complaint.  In January 2009, Gaul who had a number of health problems that the Family Research Council had gone out of its way to accommodate was forced to go on short term disability leave.

“The Family Research Council’s Vice President of Administration assured her that her health insurance would continue through her short-term disability leave.” But following her complaint with the DC Office of Human Rights “FRC’s  Vice President of Administration informed Gaul that the Family Research Council  was retroactively canceling her health insurance for the period she was on short term disability.”

When she returned to the work and the Family Research Council failed to reinstate her health insurance Gaul, desperate for coverage,  “contacted various members of management and Human Resources for help.” In response, a top FRC official “threatened to issue another reprimand for insubordination if she attempted to raise the issue of her health insurance again.”

In May,  the FRC  said she would longer be allowed to report to work a little late to accommodate her health issues, which include Fibromyalgia, a disease which causes pain in the muscles.

Although she had received two excellent reviews and no reprimands at FRC before filing her complaint she was hit with three reprimands afterwards. One concerned turning in a time sheet late; the second missing a radio interview due a miscommunication and a third for insubordination.

Her sexual harassment complaint was settled on July 31, 2009 but the hostility continued, the lawsuit says. 

Finally,  on October 23, 2009, the Family Research Council terminated Gaul’s employment because of what it said was a “reduction in federal funding to the abstinence movement” and the need for a person in the position “with a background in a variety of ‘life issue’ areas beyond abstinence, which [FRC] claimed that Ms. Gaul did not have “

The lawsuit says both these reasons are pretexts for retaliation. There was funding available and Gaul had experience in many areas beyond abstinence. “Federal funding for abstinence education continued after Ms. Gaul was terminated, and, three months after her termination, the FRC created a new position with duties substantially similar to those previously performed by Ms. Gaul.”

In its motion for summary judgment the FRC says Gaul has no right to claim retaliation based on the complaint because it was settled and therefore not legally actionable.  “Plaintiff can not show that her position was eliminated in response to any protected activity she engaged in or that the Defendant exhibited unlawful or otherwise prohibited behavior.”

It’s very difficult to win a lawsuit for illegal retaliation. Gaul has lots of circumstantial evidence but no smoking gun in terms of an email that spells out retaliatory intent.  She also filed a complaint for illegal retaliation with the DC Office of Human Rights but they dismissed it.

But it’s clear that the FRC is desperate to cover up the sexual harassment by her supervisor and the settlement. That’s not something which an organization that fancies itself morally superior to most Americans should be allowed to pull off.

Or any organization. Or public figure. Let’s remember that Herman Cain’s presidential campaign first started to implode when he tried to cover-up his settlement of sexual harassment cases while head of the National Restaurant Association.

But the FRC has convinced the judge in the case to forbid Gaul’s lawyers from asking questions about the sexual harassment settlement. They also had the settlement itself sealed.

Shannon Stokes, one of the lawyers at the powerhouse law firm of Kirkland and Ellis representing Gaul, declined comment.

Gaul,  42,  has sought work with numerous conservative organizations since her dismissal, but remains unemployed despite an impressive resume. Is she being blacklisted?

William J. Hickey, the lawyer for the Family Research Council, did not respond to a request for comment.

William Saunders who had been at Family Research Council for 10 years decamped to Americans United for Life not long after Gaul filed her sexual harassment complaint about him. Did that organization know about the charges and settlement when they hired him?

Yuval Levin, a board member of Americans United for Life,  told me that he was not aware of the sexual harassment charges against Saunders. He said he could not comment further without seeing the complaint. When I started to read it to him he hung up on me.


Saunders did not respond to repeated emails. 

For the Huffington Post follow-up to this story go  here.





Evan Gahr has written for almost every major conservative publication.

Bloomberg and CAIR

Go here for story

Michael Steele Sneak Interview

Michael Steele was a big “get” for George Stephanapolous but he got nothing.

On April 5, 2010 Stephanapolous, host of the Sunday morning mainstay “This Week” got the first interview with Steele since the Daily Caller made him a national laughing stock by disclosing that his charges plunked down nearly $2000 at a bondage-themed night club in Hollywood.

Rather than grill Steele about strippergate and other misdoings at the RNC, Stephanapolous, who needed to stay on Steele’s good side so he’ll do the show again, let him do more spinning than a Chanukah dreidel. 

For example, when Steele said he’s held to a higher standard because he’s black the obvious follow-up would have been, “Oh, really? Can you name one head of a white organization who turned his group into a national laughing stock but wasn’t forced to resign.”

At least Stephanapolous brought up strippergate. Chris Wallace didn’t even ask Steele about GOP scandals when he appeared on Fox News Sunday May 24. Neither did CNBC when Steele appeared June 22 on its “Squack on the Street.”

And that’s been it for interviews.

Nevertheless, I was determined to get Steele on the phone and ask him questions that Wallace, Stephanapolous and CNBC should have but didn’t.

Still, I knew Steele, a walking argument against affirmative action, wouldn’t talk to me or any other reporter.

(In fact, I later heard that when a television producer showed up at his house to ask him questions he slammed the door in her face.)

But maybe he would talk to a potential donor with deep pockets.

The idea, which is a standard journalism tool, was get him to talk about one thing that excites him and he’ll inevitably start talking about other stuff.

And Steele just loves to talk.

It was just a matter of breaking the ice.

And, of course, everyone loves money. Steele needs lots of it for his private jets.

On July 26, around 930pm, I called Steele at his listed home number in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.

Well, actually my alter-ego who works at a hedge fund called him.

And sure enough Steele picked up. 

Or did he?

The conversation went as follows. 

Michael Steele: Hello

Evan Gahr: Michael?

Michael Steele: Can I ask who’s calling?

Evan Gahr: Yeah, this is Bertram. I work in a hedge fund and I’m interested in making a donation but I’m worried my money is going to go to strippers and that kind of thing.

Michael Steele: Well, let me leave a message for him. 

What a goofball. He’s been on television gazillions of times but Steele thinks nobody could possibly recognize his voice?

Evan Gahr: It sounds just like him. 

Michael Steele: [Laughs]. Who is this?

Evan Gahr: I said that’s my name, Bertram. I want to make a donation but I'm worried the money will go to strippers.

Michael Steele. That’s crazy. That was a staffer who got fired as soon as I heard about it. We put all the appropriate controls and not one dollar goes to that kind of activity.

Evan Gahr: How do you feel about Norm Coleman possibly challenging you for re-election as GOP chairman, as Politico reported?

Michael Steele: "Norm is an old friend. Norm is not going to challenge me for RNC chairman. If he does I’ll put my record up against anyone who comes after to me. I feel confident we’ll get re-elected. I’m not worried about that part of it."

This is actually newsworthy. It’s the first indication from Steele that he intends to seek re-election when his term expires next year. And it’s his sole comment on the Politico story about Coleman.

Back to his unintentional interview.

Evan Gahr: Chris Matthews and Frank Rich said you weren’t fired because you’re black.

Michael Steele: [Laughs.] I didn’t hear that. Everybody’s got a reason why I haven’t got fired. I haven’t been fired because I’ve been doing my job. My won loss record is better than any chairman in the last 10 years.

Evan Gahr: The RNC says you need private jets [when no commercial flights are available--

Michael Steele: I don’t take private jets.

Evan Gahr: You’ve taken them in the past. Where did you go that no commercial flights were available?

Michael Steele: On election day I flew from BWI to [Trenton]New Jersey to spend part of the day with Chris Christie. Then flew to down to Richmond Virginia to watch the election results with the governor. You tell me the commerical flight that will get me to New Jersey and then to Virginia and then back to New Jersey at 10 pm.

Evan Gahr: Where else did you go that there were no commerciall flights?

Michael Steele: I don’t know. Check with the staff. Certain parts of the Dakotas are tough to get to for two for three events in one day.[Or] you go from Florida and Wisconsin to Michigan in one day.

Evan Gahr: In terms of making the GOP a hip hop party have you thought of going around with baggy jeans?

Michael Steele: No. That’s not the point of that. The idea was to take the party into communities that don’t sound like typical Republicans.

Evan Gahr: Now, there’s been a lot of people fired--

Michael Steele: I don’t mean to cut you off but I’m in the middle of something.

Evan Gahr: There have been a lot of people fired. Are you responsible for what your subordinates do?

Michael Steele: Ultimately at the end of the day. I’m making sure the organization does what it’s supposed to do.

Evan Gahr: You said you have a lower margin of error because you’re black. Can you name one head of a white organization who brought nationwide embarassment on the group but was not forced to resign?

Michael Steele: Well, I don’t know. Howard Dean went through a lot. People thought he said some shit and done [sic] some embarassing things.

Evan Gahr: I’m really a reporter. Why are you avoiding interviews? What are you scared of?

Michael Steele: Who are you with?

Evan Gahr: The Washington Gadfly, a new iconoclastic website.

Evan Gahr: Has anybody had enough chutzpah to call you at home.

Michael Steele: [Many] people do. Next time you should identify yourself as a reporter. That’s the ethical thing.

Evan Gahr: If I did you wouldn't have talked to me.

Michael Steele: That’s probably true because I’m not doing any interviews. Activists call all the time. They don’t try to sneak an interview. That is not kosher.

Evan Gahr: Reporters go undercover all the time. The New York Post just went undercover to expose Medicaid fraud.

Michael Steele: Well, ok. There's no fraud here.

Michael Steele: Ok.I’ll talk to you buddy.

Evan Gahr: Bye.

Thanks for the interview, buddy.

Especially because Steele continues to be elusive.

Four days after I called Steele abruptly cancelled an appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists convention in San Diego, where he was expected to be grilled about past statements and and his scheduled appearance at a GOP fundraiser (since cancelled) with conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.

Steele’s aide claimed he cancelled the NABJ appearance due to food poisoning.

Did he get that from sticking his foot in his mouth one too many times?

--EVAN GAHR

Kagan's Illegitimate Daugther

Elena Kagan has no children--unless you count Geneva Crenshaw.

And that would make the father Derrick Bell, a proponent of critical race studies, essentially blame whitey in legal vernacular.

Although it's impossible to tell from the Harvard Law Review masthead or any articles when Kagan was one of the editors who helped publish a work of fiction by Bell about civil rights leader Geneva Crenshaw.

jewishworldreview.com/0510/kagan_blemish2_gahr.php3

Brokaw on Olbermann

By EVAN GAHR

Professional Angry Person Keith Olbermann already silenced Donny Deutsch.

Now, its Tom Brokaw.

Brokaw was at the 66th and Broadway Barnes and Noble last night to moderate a discussion with musician Peter Buffet, son of Warren Buffet, about his new book, Life is What You Make It.  (If you write a book that’s one big cliche does that mean your life is also?)

Anyway, after Brokaw left the event room I corned him and said how do you feel about Olberman getting Donny Deutsch kicked off MSNBC.

Brokaw said, “I don’t go there,” patted me on the arm like a frisky dog and walked away.

Where’s Olberman going to go with that? Who does he silence next now that Brokaw has declined to take issue with his Stalinist purge?

And there you have it: the very embodiment of NBC News and ostensibly objective journalism has no problem with censorship by his own network.  

Contrast that with how liberals would have shrieked if the Bush Administration tried to get a NBC journalist who criticized them kicked off the air.

Brokaw told me he is writing a book of advice for his grandchildren and the next generation.

What lesson is Brokaw giving his grandchildren by keeping quiet about Keith Olbermann?

Let a bully at your organization run wild if he makes it lots of money?        

Evan Gahr has written about the press for the American Spectator, Wall Street Journal and the New York Post.              

Kagan Coverup Uncovered

United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who President Barack Obama interviewed April 30 to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court is considered a blank slate.. 

But is she?

True, Kagan, a former Harvard Law School dean, would be the first person without judicial experience appointed to the Supreme Court since William Rehnquist in 1972, doesn’t have much of a paper trail. 

Her views on most of the hot button issues she would likely decide on the Supreme Court--race relations, abortion and federalism, are mostly impossible to discern.  

But Kagan does have an identifiable, though overlooked,  track record on one matter and it’s a telling one. As Dean of Harvard Law School in 2004 and 2005 she treated two liberal law professors with kid gloves when they were busted for plagiarism. Her chicanery was so blatant that even a leftist academic said she should be fired for her  “whitewash.” 

Kagan’s essential absolution of both professors has been virtually unnoticed in the flood of stories about her possible Supreme Court nomination this year and in 2009 when she was considered a top candidate to replace liberal Justice David Souter. 

But the way she handled professors Larry Tribe and Charles Ogletree, when they both were caught swiping the words of others, seems to violate basic principles of fairness. 

She let the professors off easy for the kind of offense that for which any Harvard undergraduate or law school would have been suspended if not expelled.  

As the Harvard Crimson wrote after Kagan and Harvard president Larry Summers declined to punish Tribe, “the glaring double standard set by Harvard stands as an inadequate precedent for future disappointments.” 

It also could say a lot about Kagan would behave on the bench. Through inaction and disingenuous statements that disregarded Harvard’s own disciplinary policy Kagan exonerated Tribe and Ogletree of any malfeasance. 

In other words, like a good liberal activist judge, she ignored precedent and the plain meaning of relevant texts to create an outcome that struck her fancy.  

The copycat cases came to light in the Fall of 2004. Ogletree was busted first for his book, part history part personal memoir, All Deliberate Speed.

Following a Harvard investigation ordered by Kagan when she received an unsigned letter claiming that Ogletree’s book had ripped off a collection of essays about Brown Ogletree issued a September 3 statement on the school  website.

The professor, who taught both Michelle Obama and Barack Obama at Harvard Law School, said that his book contained six paragraphs, almost word for word, from the essay collection, What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said. The 2001 book was edited by Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin. 

Ogletree, who gained prominence when he served as Anita Hill’s lawyer during the Clarence Thomas confirmation battle, said he took “complete responsibility” for the errors.  Then he blamed it on his research assistants.

He said one assistant put quotation marks around Balkin’s words so the other assistant could summarize it with “proper attribution to Balkin.” But the second assistant mistakenly removed the quotes and and sent a book draft to the publisher. 

So much for contrition what about the punishment?  

Ogletree told the Boston Globe that he would face disciplinary action but neither he nor Kagan’s spokeswoman would specify it.

Kagan said in a statement that Olgetree was guilty of “a serious scholarly transgression.” 

But Ogletree was not suspended, which is the minimum that undergraduates and graduates face when they are busted for plagiarism. How seriously then did Kagan really treat this transgression?

Certainly, the statement Ogletree issued, which was “approved” by Harvard according to the Boston Globe, relied on an excuse, unintentional copying, that Harvard Law School’s student handbook explicitly says is not exculpatory. “Students who submit work that is not their own, without clear attribution of all sources, even if the omission is inadvertent will be subject to disciplinary action.” 

As the controversy festered, Harvard Law School professor Larry Tribe, a party line liberal, came to Ogletree’s defense.  Tribe told the Boston Globe that Ogletree is someone who “because he often says yes to them many people all over the country who ask for help on all kinds of things, he has extended himself even farther than someone with all the energy can safely do.” 

Tribe vouching Ogletree’s character quickly sounded like  Eliot Spitzer vouching for your monogamy.  

A law professor who read about Tribe’s defense tipped off The Weekly Standard that Tribe’s 1985 book, God Save This Honourable Court, had purloined quite a bit from University of Virgina emeritus professor Henry Abraham’s acclaimed 1974 book, Justice and Presidents.

In a humongous article posted on the magazine’s         website September 24 Joseph Bottum documented multiple passages from Tribe’s book, the bible for liberals who Borked Robert Bork in 1987 when he was nominated for the Supreme Court in 1987, that were clearly lifted from Abraham’s.  

One phrase was taken verbatim. “Taft publicly pronounced Pitney to be a ‘weak member’ of the court.”

Many others were virtually identical.  Consider Bottum’s many examples. Abraham: “Caleb Cushing was unquestionably highly qualified and possessed of a superb mind."’  Tribe:  "Cushing was possessed of a fine mind and undoubtedly highly qualified."

And that was the lest of it, Bottum, now editor of First Things, noted that “The historical sections of the book typically consist  of a long passage from Abraham crunched down by rephrasing and the elimination of detail -- as one might expect when Abraham’s 298 pages of material are made to provide the facts around which Tribe builds his own thesis in [only] 143 pages of text."

Tribe quickly issued a non-apology apology.  Just like Ogletree he accepted full responsibility for the plagiarism--and then proceeded to say it was all a harmless error. 

Tribe contended that his “well meaning effort to write a Book accessible to a lay audience through the omission of any footnotes or endnotes in contrast to the practices I have always followed in my scholarly writing came at an unacceptable cost: my failure to attribute some of the material the Weekly Standard attributed.”

Why just some? He didn’t identify what the Standard supposedly got wrong.

                                                                                                                            

And what was Kagan’s reaction to Tribe’s mea not so culpable? She refused any comment to the Boston Globe and appointed a three person panel to investigate the matter.

In other words, she stonewalled. Why did she need to investigate what Tribe had already admitted? Tribe didn’t challenge any facts in the Weekly Standard opus.

A mere seven months later the panel presented its report to Kagan and then Harvard president Larry Summers. 

What did they find? Nobody knows. The report was not released and former Harvard president Derek Bok, one the authors, refused to discuss it when reached at home last week.

The only “punishment” Tribe got was a statement by Kagan and Summers that cleared him of any malfeasance. 

“The unattributed materials relates more to matters of phrasing than to fundamental ideas,” they said, offering a distinction that would have been irrelevant to Harvard if a student had done the same thing. “We  are also firmly convinced that the error was the product of inadvertence rather than intentionality." 

“Nevertheless, we regard the error in question as a significant lapse in proper academic practice.” 

A lapse? That’s like saying someone who bounces check didn’t swindle anyone the bum checks were just a lapse in accounting procedures.  Or the shoplifter had a lapse in memory when he left the store without paying.

And again, just like Kagan’s statement on Ogletree, if the lapse was so “significant” why wasn’t Tribe sanctioned?

In a lengthy article for his blog, Massachusetts School of Law  Dean Lawrence Velvel said Kagan and Summers should have been axed for their “whitewash.”

He cited example after example of how Kagan and Tribe essentially offered excuses for the very actions they purported to condemn.

For example,  Summers and Kagan said that they had “taken note that the relevant conduct took place two decades ago.”

Why take note? Velvel asked.  “Do we forgive criminals because their crimes were committed 20 years ago, but they managed to hide them for two decades?) 

                         

Well, maybe Velvel is just a conservative ideologue determined to bludgeon liberals with any rhetorical weapon available?

Uh, not exactly. In September 2008, Velvel held a conference to plan the prosecution of Bush Administration officials for “war crimes.”  

In his analysis of the Kagan-Summers statement Velvel, who could not be reached for comment,  was also subtle.  “What can one say of this travesty? “ he asked. “Only, I suppose, that it is a travesty. Its language is misleading, its logic miserable, and its spirit corrupt. “

Corrupt, indeed. Law school students, however, caught with purloined words just like Tribe and Ogletree don’t have it so easy.  

The current Harvard Law School handbook describes three cases of plagiarism by students in “recent years.” One student was suspended. The other was suspended and not allowed back to complete his studies. 

The third student had already graduated when his plagiarism was discovered. His degree was rescinded.

Maybe they can get jobs as research assistants for Ogletree or Tribe. 

As for Kagan and her possible new job, given how little integrity she displayed at Harvard is there any reason to think she’ll have any at the Supreme Court?

 

--Evan Gahr has written about law for many conservative publications.

Are Bloggers Journalists?

Virtually all bloggers don't have editors.

What kind of journalist doesn't have an editor? What does it say about a writer who thinks he doesn't need an editor? 

--EVAN GAHR has written for almost every major publication.

RNC Expense at Club Macanudo Not Connected to PA National Committeewoman, Christine J. Toretti

Recently I wrote an article in response to all of the coverage on questionable RNC expenses. Today, I want to acknowledge a mistake made in my article and set the record straight.

I reported that the RNC spent $9,000 on a “shindig” at Club Macanudo in New York hosted by respected business magnate and National Committeewoman, Christine J. Toretti, of Pennsylvania. After further exploration and more detailed investigation I have discovered that in fact the $9000 RNC expense was for a separate major donor event that happens to be held at the same venue Ms. Toretti uses for as she said “a private party.”

The two events are separate and the RNC expense has nothing to do with Ms. Toretti or her annual event. In no way did Ms. Toretti have knowledge of or authority over the RNC expense. I do apologize for the misunderstanding.

Another RNC Spendthrift

By EVAN GAHR

Everyone has heard quite a bit about Republican Party chairman Michael Steele's private jets, expensive hotels, the $1946.25 that his charges plunked down at West Hollywood Voyeur and liquor store purchases they called "office expenses."

But an exhaustive review of all the RNC 2009 disbursement reports finds some stuff charged to the RNC that sound even less work-related than the West Hollywood Voyeur tab. 

Meet Republican National Committee worker bee Nancy Hibbs, whose job title is classified. Hibbs last year received $761.00 for what the RNC disbursement report calls "automotive maintenance" at "CS Dealer Services" in Arlington, VA.

Except that CS Dealer Services does not repair cars. They just sell all kinds of electronic goodies for your auto, such as CD systems, DVD players and iPods and other nifty stuff that would be really cool to buy with money that belongs to somebody else.

And just what does Hibbs do with her car? Well, the RNC last July gave her $350 for "traffic violations." Maybe the charges were incurred on a business trip?

Uh, no. The money was paid to the DC Department of Motor Vehicles.

Asked why she charges the RNC for what look like personal expenses Hibbs pleaded (feigned?) ignorance. "I don't know what you're talking about,"she huffed before hanging up.

Who is Nancy Hibbs? Google her name and Republican and almost nothing comes up.

And just what does Hibbs do for the RNC, anyway? The goober who answered Michael Steele's phone said, "We don't release that information."  It was tempting to ask, "Do you think you're the CIA?" 

But the point would have gone right  over the head of the goober, who seemed bereft of any sense of irony.

Another mystery: The RNC last year paid somebody’s rent at Hill House Apartments near Congress. But there are no offices located in the building. Was the pad rented for official RNC business?

It could be for somebody's monkey business. For all we know it could be Michael Steele's love nest. Although the ultimate love nest for Steele, a walking argument against affirmative action, is a TV studio.

Yes. There could be innocent explanations for these expenses. Still, given the GOP spending exposed thus far the RNC doen't deserve a presumption of innocence. They should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

And nobody should be ashamed of experiencing major Schadenfreude as they watch Michael Steele send the party down the toilet. The GOP deserves all the headaches they got from Steel because they believed a black chairman would get them black votes or praise from the mainstream media.

Blacks are not androids easily programmed to vote Republican candidates because the party chairman is black.  Like everyone else they'll vote for candidates on the basis of how his or her policy stances and personality resonates with them.

Instead of playing diversity-fetish politics like liberals Republicans should have stood tall for color blind hiring. But they didn't.

If you sleep with animal companions--to use the politically correct term-- you wake up with fleas.  

  

Evan Gahr has written for almost every major conservative publication.