Talk:Dana Rohrabacher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Dana Rohrabacher is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

Contents

[edit] Experience at The Register

Questions regarding Rohrabacher's tenure at The Register

  1. When did he work there? Right after college graduation? or did he do other work before working at The Register?
  2. Did the job there provide him the connections and/or give him the experience to get into the Reagen White House?

There is currently not enough information to put this work experience in the main body of the article. If nobody knows the answers, I will put this one sentence back in the Misc section. --Asbl 18:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the work at The Register was part of it, but he had been an anarcho-capitalist activist, and had been supported by libertarian billionare Charles Koch. Koch decided to change from spending his financial influence on the radical extreme of libertarianism for a more mainstream approach of attempting to move the existing political right towards libertarianism instead of the radical Murray Rothbard type approach. When Koch took his Cato Institute towards the mainstream, Rohrabacher went with him. Koch funded Rohrabacher's first two failed congressional campains. From there he went on to be a Reagan speechwriter. Though without hard proof, I'd be pretty certain, that Koch and his money was the important factor. See http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=rr_main&Number=1352628&page=&view=&sb=&o= and also contact Jeff Riggenbach and some other famous libertarians for more of Rohrabacher's early political history from his friends of that time. He might be compared to Alan Greenspan as a former libertarian turned establishment leader, or oppositely to Karl Hess as a former Nixon and Goldwater speechwriter turned into a Black Panther supporting radical under watch of the FBI. Carltonh 17:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
One more thing. Per this 1976 Journal of Libertarian Studies, http://64.233.167.104/u/Mises?q=cache:uY5EThP4-3MJ:www.mises.org/journals/lf/1976/1976_10.pdf+Dana+Rohrabacher+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8, Rohrabacher was already calling himself a "anarcho-pragmatist" and supporting Reagan in California politics long before there was a Reagan White House, so the Koch funding might not be the primary cause, though still likely a precursor. Carltonh 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Taliban Support?"

Was the purported support of the Taliban really support, or was he simply supporting the mujahadin? The two need to be separated, and I'm not sure the original author of that section notes that properly. That said, perhaps he did support the Taliban specifically, but there needs to be precision in the way this is worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnLee (talk • contribs)

I changed the wording before (I agree that the original author used too-sweeping language). I've revised it again so that it is (hopefully) clearer and more accurate. (For example, there were certainly groups fighting the Soviet Union who ended up fighting the Taliban rather than becoming part of that government/regime; the U.S. allied with such groups when U.S. troops entered Afganistan after 9/11.) John Broughton 16:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The Taliban was created in large part within Pakistan and in the aftermath of the Afghan-Soviet War, not during its inception.
The phrasing is still inaccurate, especially when you say he supported fighters under the command of Osama Bin-Laden.
Osama Bin-Laden was not known as a visible entity and major figure during the Soviet-Afghan War.
At least, not by United States authorities, who didn't really begin to track him until 1996, at the very earliest. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence you refer to; it wasn't particularly useful or necessary. John Broughton | Talk 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle Scout

Here is a reference stating that Rohrabacher is both an Eagle Scout and a Distinguished Eagle Scout:

Since my addition of the reference and the categories was reverted, I leave it to any interested party to do with this as they desire. I have no other interest in this and I have no further interest in discussing the issue. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - my error. I've added back the categories. John Broughton 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrongdoing of aide

Mattfiller - The section I just deleted,which you had added, included the following sentence: "The OC Weekly article implies that Rohrabacher and/or the District attorney have contributed to the delay of this trial for political reasons." If the "and/or" means "and", then the sentence is FALSE; the article does not, as far as I can tell, mention Rohrabacher in any way delaying the case. If the "and/or means" "or", then the sentence is true (the article implies the DA has delayed, mentioning the aide was once an intern in the DA's office) in the same way that the sentence "George W. Bush and/or Jimmy Carter and/or someone else assassinated John F. Kennedy" - yet such a sentence would be instantly removed from the Bush or Carter articles as a violation of WP:BLP and probably other policies. So in either case, the sentence does NOT justify having this section in the article.

The edit summary, Rohrabacher has not denied public charges by the OCWeekly that he contributed to delaying of prosecution of Nielsen, seems even less supported by the news article than the text added to wikipedia: the OCWeekly article in no way "charged" that Rohrabacher "contributed" to the delay.

Anything added to this wikipedia article needs to fully comply with WP:BLP. What I've been doing is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. If the aide's wrongdoing is NOT connected to Rohrabacher, except for the fact that the aide worked for him, it's irrelevant; if Rohrabacher covered up or otherwise obstructed the legal process of prosecuting the aide, or even knew about it and failed to report it, then the description of what Rohrabacher did wrong needs to be QUOTED in order to justify having this section in the article at all. John Broughton | Talk 22:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] How rich he is?

I assume I man with so many dirty things in his curriculum might be very rich. Or am I missing something? Thank you. 201.19.211.225 14:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming / Dinosaur Flatulence: Misquote.

That section reads like he said the current global warming was caused by "dinosaur flatulence". In fact, he was referring to previous rises in CO2 levels:

"We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows? We do know the CO2 in the past had its time when it was greater as well. And what happened when the CO2 was greater since then and now? There have been many cycles of up and down warming." [1]

No matter how far-fetched all that may be, we should at least give him the honest treatment and not deliberately misquote in order to make him look like a total idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.231.29.73 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Having seen the video in the link, it's obvious that he's joking. I suggest we change "theorized" to "joked". IgorW 08:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Former anarchists

The other night, I added Dana Rohrabacher to the category former anarchists, given that he was at one time a LeFevrian anarchist. This is confirmed in the book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement by Brian Doherty.

A wikipedian by the screen name Alanraywiki undid my edit. I plan to re-do my edit, but I wanted to address this here in case there is any reason why Dana Rohrabacher does not belong in that category.

The only reason I can think for not including him is if it turned out that he was still an anarchist. But, it appears that he is not. For one thing, he's voted for a variety of big-government policies while in office. For another, he all but told Doherty in an interview that he'd given up on those views, no longer believing them to be practical.

It indeed seems that he is no longer an anarchist, thus making him a perfect candidate for inclusion in the former anarchists category.

If anyone has any objection, please make your case here. Thanks! :)

Allixpeeke (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. Frankly, when I saw the word anarchist in connection with a current politician and no explanation in the edit summary, I just reverted. Now that you've pointed out this background with the source, I will not revert your category addition again. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] combining the iraq war with vietnam era injury is argumentation, not history

As usual on Wikipedia, someone has decided to introduce argument (from the left). Write an editorial if you want that. I will fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second War in Iraq

Rohrabacher has a pro-war stance. THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING ROHRABACHER'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCE REGARDING WAR AND PERSONAL SACRIFICE HAVE BEEN INSERTED HERE NUMEROUS TIMES AND REMOVED EACH TIME BY ROHRABACHER THOUGHT POLICE: In a February 13, 2003 interview with Toby Eckert of Copley News Service published in the South Bay (Torrance, Calif.) Daily Breeze, Rohrabacher revealed that he showed up to his draft physical during the Vietnam War with an X-ray of a hip he claimed had been injured in high school football. "They looked at it and they said my hip wasn't good enough," he told Eckert. "When I look back on that, sometimes I wonder if I should have taken that X-ray with me or not." http://copleydc.com/copleydc_staff/Eckert/eckert_1-13-03.htm


They were removed, because it's an implicit argument ABOUT Rohrbacher. I don't know if it's a valid one or not. But Wiki is not the place for that sort of thing. If you wnt to talk about his non-service in the VN war, do it in a section over there! And I did my time in the service. And I'm not part of the thought police.

[edit] New Foreign Policy Section

I was thinking of combining some of Rohrabacher's scattered foreign policy views and causes （and surrounding controversies) into a single section. I thought I'd throw it out here first to see what people think, and hope for people's friendly collaboration, not to mention disagreements, though I hope people can refrain from being excessively partisan!Ocedits (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)