I read Christian Berthelsen's article in this morning's LA Times: "Critics See Bias In OC Sheriff Pick."

I am one of those "Republican men" in the article who is critical of the vote by Supervisors John Moorlach, Janet Nguyen and Pat Bates to appoint Sandra Hutchens over Paul Walters. Given the naturally charged nature of subject matter, I'll venture some comments on the story.

First, let me re-state, again, my view of the appointment so there's no confusion about I do and don't think. Hopefully, that will make my reasoning -- to quote one of my old English teachers -- obvious to even the most obtuse.

What I Don't Think
As I wrote yesterday, I don't think gender or pressure from the California Women's Leadership Association had anything to do with Sup. Moorlach's vote.

I don't think Supervisor Nguyen's vote stemmed directly from the fact Janet is a woman, or that Hutchens is a woman.

I don't think Hutchens is unqualified to to be Orange County Sheriff. Quite the opposite.

I don't think Hutchens' sex has a bearing on her ability to be Sheriff. In fact, in case anyone has missed the point, I don't think gender should have become a factor in the appointment process.

I don't think California Women's Leadership Association members should have been silent instead of vigorously advocating for their preferred candidate.

Is everyone still with me?

What I Do Think
I think gender was ultimately the decisive factor -- the tipping point -- in Hutchens selection, and that anyone denying it played a role in her appointment is blind, dishonest or deceiving themselves.

The only communication I received from the Hutchens camp was an e-mailed press release/interview request sent out May 19 by Newport Beached-based Echo Media PR, entitled: "OC's First Female Sheriff?":

Good Evening, 

As the only woman vying for the position of Orange County's next sheriff, Sandra Hutchens is poised to become OC's first-ever female appointed to the position.

Yep. No reference to gender there.

The Post-June 3 Differential
Let's look at the situation before and after the Board narrowed the finalists down to Walters and Hutchens.

The names of the 9 finalists became public on May 9. The public interviews were conducted on May 27, the same day Frank Mickadeit published a complimentary column about her. She interviewed well, sparking more interest in her, and insider handicapping was either she or Richard Beamer would join Paul Walters and Ralph Martin among what was presumed would be the final three candidates.

On June 3, the Board unexpectedly narrowed it down to just two candidate, Walters and Hutchens.

At that point, an intense pro-Hutchens lobbying campaign by the California Women's Leadership Association was launched, which quickly gathered momentum and proceeded to upset the conventional wisdom that the most likely outcome was a 4-1 vote for Walters.

Sup. John Moorlach was always a "no" vote on Walters, while Supervisors Norby and Campbell were solid Walters votes.

Given that Supervisors Bates and Nguyen tend to be more consensus, go-with-the-flow oriented and believed both candidates to be qualified, the smart money was they'd likely vote with Campbell and Norby -- especially Nguyen, since Walters had the support of police chiefs and local electeds in her district.

In other words, the pre- and post-June 3 differential -- the factor which changed the dynamic of the selection process -- was the CWLA lobbying effort, which was sparked by the suddenly real opportunity to appoint a woman as sheriff. The CWLA leadership has close (and inn the case of Bates very long-standing) ties with both Supervisors and worked hard for their respective elections, and I have no doubt the CWLA effort was the tipping point that tilted their support to Hutchens.

Look at it this way, if the choice had come down to Paul Walters and Samuel Hutchens, can anyone tell me with a straight face the CWLA would have blitzed Bates and Nguyen? And absent that blitz, that bates and Nguyen would have passed over Walters?

And can anyone tell me with a straight face that the lobbying effort for Walters had anything to do with the fact he is a man?

March of the Straw Men
The most enjoyable portions of the LA Times article were the lazy, intellectually flaccid contentions that critics of the Hutchens appointment are basically misogynists:

But to some, the comments about the new sheriff dredged up stereotypes of what they thought was a bygone era of Orange County politics, in which Republican men called the shots and were loath to share power.

"You'll always find a few die hards out there," said Marian Bergeson, a former county supervisor, state legislator and education secretary under Gov. Pete Wilson.

Funny, this "die hard" remembers voting for Sen. Bergeson over Sen. John Seymour -- a man! -- in the 1990 GOP primary for Lieutenant Governor.

I also supported Mimi Walters over Harry Sidhu, Diane Harkey over Tom Harman, Carolyn Cavecche for Mayor of Orange over Mike Alvarez, etc. Yep, I just hate the idea of women in power.

Steve Wilkinson, a 26-year veteran sheriff's deputy in Los Angeles County who once worked for Hutchens, said he was surprised by the comments. "It's time for Orange County to get away from this good-old-boy syndrome," he said.

I think it's time for Wilkerson to find a fresh cliché, because the expiration date on that one passed a long time ago.

But the best was this gem from Tim Whitacre:

"The only reason Walters was supported is because the good ol' boys wanted him to be the sheriff," said Tim Whitacre, a longtime Hunt supporter and member of the Orange County GOP."It's sour grapes. What else can they say? These men don't want to dare admit that this woman is more qualified than a man."

Looks like Tim had just polished off a bottle of "Old Straw Man" when he spoke to the LAT. Just who are these good ol' boys pulling the strings? Since Tim seems to know who they are, perhaps he can enlighten us?

As for that latter line: Yes, Tim, every day I find myself telling my wife and four daughters how I don't believe they could ever be more qualified than a man. It's laughable riposte and absurd straw man from someone whose quiver of arguments is empty.

I'll say it once again: CWLA worked hard for their candidate and she prevailed. It's a free country, and that's a feather in their cap.

And once again, I wish Sandra Hutchens success as Sheriff, because her success is in the best interest of the county.

But none of that mutually exclusive with being disappointed that the more qualified (in my opinion) candidate was passed over due to the decisive impact of a lobbying campaign driven primarily by gender politics. And I don't see the point in denying gender was a factor.