« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The War for the California Republican Party

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  September 6th, 2009 at 09:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

At our next Republican Convention here in California, the most important vote we take may be the vote to close our primary elections, ensuring that people are Republicans before they can choose who will represent our party on the ballot. Since 1999 when we opened our primaries to those who do not join a party, we have had no noteworthy statewide electoral success from primary-nominated Republicans (our dear Governor Schwarzenegger, remember, bypassed the primary process in the recall of Governor Gray Davis).

So the benefits of the open primary have been shown to be minimal. Yet a certain coalition of Republicans will be fighting hard to keep our primaries open. Notable in that coalition are the backers of Meg “I’m a huge fan of Van Jones” Whitman, candidate for Governor; Carly “The fundamental objective [of HP is] to be a good international citizen” Fiorina, candidate for Senate; and of course Governor Arnold “Right-wing crazies” Schwarzenegger. See a pattern?

This is what I’ve been saying all along about the Chuck DeVore/Carly Fiorina primary race for Senate. This is about more than who’s going to be the sacrifice on the ballot this time around. This is about what our party will stand for, and who will get to claim the mantle of speaking for the party the next time our legislative conservatives obstruct Democrat tax hikes.

And I’m perfectly willing to concede our two US Senate seats and Governor’s chair in exchange for strong Assembly and state Senate caucuses, as well as strong conservatives in the US House, free of undermining influences from said Senate nominees and Governor’s offices. We’re not going to win the statewide offices anyway, because if push came to shove the unions and their allies would start running ads with as many lies as it took to win, or to raise the money it took to run those ads, just as the pro-abort forces did to beat back Parental Notification last year.

Just look at the record: We did no better containing spending under Schwarzenegger than under Davis*, this despite his big talk on taxes and spending. As usual, the squish on social policy turned out to be a squish on fiscal policy as well, failing to use the line-item veto to bring the budget under control, instead letting the spending grow until it became a crisis, and then supporting tax hikes and accounting shell games to pretend to fix the crisis.

Outside of the obscure technical offices like Secretary of State or Insurance Commissioner, or the recall fluke which bypassed the base**, with or without Independents in our primaries we haven’t been able to do anything statewide since we ran hard on illegal immigration in 1994. And of course once we did that, President Clinton triangulated on us with Operation Gatekeeper. He did so with urgency in order to keep our precious Electoral votes off the table in 1996. Note that since his goal was only to help California, and more specifically to help himself in California, he did nothing to help Arizona. In fact he just sent a lot of our runoff their way, which is why they followed our path and were a major state in the Minuteman movement a decade later.

And yes, Governor Girly Man has been wide open about his express aims to change the rules to crush conservatives, whom he once termed as “right-wing crazies” and, in the context of impeachment, “an embarassment.” That’s why he supported a plan to change the way districts are drawn in the state, selling Proposition 11 as a way to kick out conservatives who wouldn’t budge on taxes, accomplishing this by spreading us conservative voters to prevent us from controlling any districts. But even that’s not enough to satisfy his hunger to purge us from the party, because now he wants to ensure that we Republicans don’t even control our own primaries.

So sure, I understand why outsiders may want us in California to nominate the ambiguous-on-life Fiorina*** in order to try to kick out the Senate’s dumbest member, but we who live here have more at stake. We don’t want our party to become useless instead of just weak. We also want our party to represent its members, and so must close our primaries to all but our own members. Joining the party is a fast and easy process; why not encourage Californians to join it to vote in a heated primary? Let’s get more people identifying as Republican instead of just dipping a toe into our pool, then pulling it back out later.

The author is a lifelong California Resident, a new media and online consultant for hire, and can be found on Twitter.

* According to the Department of Finance, General Fund spending went up from $57.8 billion (1998-1999; Wilson’s last Budget) to $78.3 billion (2002-2003; Davis’s last budget) under Gray Davis, an increase of 35.5%. The budget then grew from that $78.3 billion to $103.0 billion (2007-2008; the last pre-recession budget) under Arnold Schwarzenegger, an increase of 33.0%. Only the Constitutional requirement for a balanced budget forced him to end the good times for government unions. He would never have done so on his own without the recession slashing tax revenues.

** It’s clear to me, from the results of the Recall election, that if not for the Recall in 2003 it would have been McClintock v. Davis in 2006, because the base Republicans backed McClintock while the center-left backed Schwarzenegger, but the latter doesn’t generally vote in our primaries. It also would have been Bustamante as the frontrunner this time but he went and backstabbed the whole state party and struck out on his own in the Recall, only to get slapped down. Now Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, Ronald Reagan’s successor, is probably going to get another shot.

*** We all know that’s what people mean when they call her electable. She calls herself personally pro-life (like John Kerry), but never elaborates. That’s all anybody means when they call a Republican electable in a Democrat-leaning state: squishy on the issues. And abortion is the king of issues in this state. You won’t be able to turn on a television or radio without seeing or hearing Barbara Boxer saying “woman’s right to choose” no matter whom we nominate next year, and especially if we’re dealing with a Supreme Court vacancy in the summer of 2010.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • smagar
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    My view: Not until we get past the divisive and polarizing Supreme Court decisions which have usurped legitimate authority and undermined the political process in this country. Political processes lead to compromise, but judicial fiat prevents compromise.

  • mndasher

    When did California go to open primaries? When I lived there (1984-1991) they were closed primaries.

  • JadedByPolitics

    Is this an area where the Committeman project would have any effect? who decides? and lastly GOOD LUCK at making real change and taking back your party!

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The state forced blanket primaries for the 1998 election (that year, we had one blanket primary debate with Harman, Davis, Al Checchi), until all the parties sued and won to overturn that.

    So we got an open primary instead. In 1999 the parties could submit to the state whether they would allow independents to vote. The Republican Party’s been allowing that since then, with an exception being the Presidential primary.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    This is all inside baseball, where getting involved in the party would make a difference.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    In the primary debate we had the three Democrats Harman, Davis, Checchi, and the one Republican, Lungren. You can imagine how it was slanted toward the Democrats.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    What level of involvement do you need to have some vote (since I suspect there is multitiered level of voting to get to the state level)?

    And is there a CA “Committeman Project” – and where is there info on that?

    Sorry, I probably haven’t been doing my homework.

  • paint_it_red

    The value of open primaries is highly suspect. I believe it is less likely to draw people into a party than it is to have crossovers/moderates pick the less conservative candidate. The GOP cannot win as conservative lite and has gotten slaughtered everywhere it has tried that approach. Rove’s approach of building on your base is how parties win elections (Bush in 2000, 2004, Obama in 2008).

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Well, the project was put forth by RS contributor Martin Knight.

    As for the coming vote, the CRP bylaws state that the Central Committee contains among others the nominees for top elective offices, appointees of Repubican officeholders and the chairmen of the county committees.

    So getting involved in electing county committee chairmen influences directly the state central committee, as does getting involved in statewide primary elections.

    You’d have to check your local county bylaws, but it’s also possible that one might gain power there by being a nominee for office.

  • RedBeard

    …being forced to let your neighbor sleep with your wife.

    Or, in the compact but accurate wit of a fellow biker, “It’s dumbassery.”

  • NeoKong

    Democrats can flood in and hand a win to the weakest Republican candidate. Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos was a perfect example of how to tamper with a primary.
    Open primaries gave us John McCain.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It’s open only to Decline to States here, that is, Independents.

  • SteveLA

    Neil,

    Jon Fleischman over at the Flash Report at least tries to “spin” this move as a long term strategy for the health of the party. Jon’s words paint a nice picture that attempts to smoke screen the real reasons for this move, you’re a bit more open about your reasons for your support of the move.

    But the one key point is the question of growth or death of the Republican party in CA as reflected in the increase in Decline to State registrations. What’s the trend line and how does this move effect that trend.

    Fleishman openly argues for a less inclusive party, one that reflects his views, one which nominates through the primary process candidates who reflect “ultimately centered around the idea that people with common ideas and beliefs”. Not sated but implied are who determines those common ideas and beliefs, a large segment of the population in an open primary or the views of a group of party activists. Your support for this move is very open and plain and you leave no doubt about your point of view on who should be nominated and why.

    The argument over making this change seems to turn on the idea that by focusing on a set of core values, excluding all other, you can grow a party as the power of those values attract voters. Fleischman clearly believes his strategy will grow the party, and only time will tell if he’s correct or will locking down the primary process to only “real” Republicans continue the downward trend lines of CA Republican brand to minority status with more people leaving the party to become Independents and or Decline to State.

    The real question that is not being discussed in any of this issue in CA and for that matter in the national scene is why are people becoming I’s or Decline to State, why are they not self identifying with the Republican party. Why are people not buying what the party is selling? It’s actually an argument that is seen on here on RS all the time with little resolution.

    The move to close the CA primary probably will increase DTS registrations as more people will begin to echo some famous words from 1962, “I didn’t leave the Republican Party. The party left me.” Maybe that’s a good thing in some folks view, with the Republican brand standing for something they believe in or not standing at all.

    It will be interesting to see how this matter turns out, given that the meeting is in your back yard so to speak, guess you’ll give a first hand account.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I don’t have the ability to visit these things firsthand. I don’t have that mobility.

    And yes, I would expect DTS numbers to grow if we pass this, as DTS numbers have been growing for some time. I don’t expect one to change the other right away.

    However in the long run, I expect a smaller *primary* population to do better at picking candidates capable of distinguishing us from the Democrats, providing a unified fron for our ideas, and enabling us to find winning issues like we had in 1994.

    It’s just hard to find any winning issues when key officials like the Governor work against our base on those issues.

    For example, taxes. We’re the original tax revolt state. Why don’t we use that more?

    So yeah, short run: fewer R primary voters. Long run: healthier R party.

  • Vannek

    Unfortunately, a lot of the those Decline to Starers (Independents) are former Democrats like my husband, who voted for Obama and is still quite pleased with his choice.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I just want to make it clear that I’m not overstating our case. This isn’t like some states, where *any* voter can request any ballot, which is what enabled Operation Chaos last year.

    If we’re accused of overstating our case it will hurt our ability to pass this change, so I’m just trying to be clear on it.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    I guess I’ll have to make contact with our county HQ, which was already on my post-Holiday list but now has been moved up in priority.

  • SteveLA

    Neil

    Maybe you are right if that is what was produced, but your words here illustrate the sort of candidates that this move goes to.

    “So sure, I understand why outsiders may want us in California to nominate the ambiguous-on-life Fiorina*** ”

    That’s not about fiscal conservatism, fiscal discipline or any pocket book issues, and Fleishman is not about those issues ether. The real battle going on is the same one going on at the national level, is the Republican brand about more than social conservative issues or not?

    In CA at least our elected Republicans have not exactly been leaders on controlling the budget, more like rear guard fighters using the power of the CA constitution to blow up a few key bridges to keep Democrats from winning the tax and spend battle. At the national level, the spending orgy of the early part of this decade was as much a Republican thing as it was a Democrat. Maybe that has changed, Dear Leader Obama has helped a lot with helping people forget Republican hogs at the trough but still, people remember.

    If this move goes through, there will be of course be more of a distinguishing of R’s from D’s, more R’s who appeal to inland social conservatives like yourself will win primaries. But those same R’s will stand almost no chance of winning in general elections when those very same stances on social issues that appeal to the base are used as a club to beat R’s over the head. CA is not exactly liberal, and is definitely not social conservative, it’s more Libertarian in the sense of for the most part wanting to leave people alone in most social issues and CA D’s know how to exploit that fact.

    My greatest fear is that your wing of the party will succeed in pushing this through and only those R’s who appeal to your views will get nominated and promptly loose state wide elections. More R’s loosing seats might just result in that very small R margin in the CA Assembly that can use rear-guard constitutional actions going away and the Democrats running this state even more into madness.

    I’ve seen this in action in my North LA County area where an increase in D registrations due to demographic changes are starting to reduce what had been safe R seats into smaller margin wins. If the CA Republican party moves hard Right then defense of the few seats that are not gerrymandered as super safe becomes more problematic and loosing the slim constitutional stopper on CA Democrats is a frighting prospect.

    Democrats win elections in CA by pretending to be moderates, CA Republicans moving hard right and closing their primaries off to those who aren’t makes it very hard to win general elections running on hard right principles approved by party activists. This move could be a way to loose the R margin in the CA Assembly that has been able to stop Democrats from increasing taxes using constitutional powers including 3/4 approval on budgets.

    Maybe that’s not important to you, but my CA tax bill is way high and the thought of R’s loosing any of the very thin margin that we have in the CA Assembly based on the CA R party turning hard right is frighting to me.

  • red_oakster

    A GOP-only primary electorate will prevent an operation chaos, but it’s not going to stop a Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman from winning. DeVore’s main problem is that he can’t raise enough money to compete. McCain won a closed primary as did Pete Wilson a bunch of times. And no one could have beaten Arnold in 2006-even if it had been a closed primary. So a closed primary is no magic formula.

    Still, you are probably right that down ticket, it will have some beneficial effects.

  • SteveLA

    red_oakster

    The move to close the CA primary is brought up by those that think that with a closed primary system we would have Governor Tom McClintock now instead of the Girlyman Governator. They are wrong, Greyman would have wooped McClintock…Big Time. In some ways that might not have been so bad.

    Don’t mention the results of the Lt. Governor’s race lost by McClintock as a reality check.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    He never should have had that chance.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    When I don’t give the answer you like, as to what this is about, you ‘re going to tell me what this is about.

    Well, have fun arguing with yourself.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’d hate to intrude upon your delusional melodrama that the wicked theocons are responsible for all that’s ill in the world, and if only we’d nominate people in favor of mass infanticide in this state, we’d have low taxes and small government.

    Never mind that your precious Governator destroys your whole theory.

  • california_red

    the problem with the CA Republican party has nothing to do with open or closed primaries. I signed up to volunteer for my county republican party over two weeks ago and I have not been contacted. I live in the 11th distrcit which I have saw swing from R to D in 2006. I am so fired up to help retake the seat that I volunteered for the first time in my life. Imaging my surprise when I can find no mention of a candidate to run against the incumbent, and I have yet to hear back from anyone from the party.

    Disgusted by this lack of a excitement and no response, and also the general inability of the Republican party to act fiscally conservative, I decided to check out what the Libertarian party had going on. They responded to my email immediately with a welcoming and enthusiastic message.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Or did you show up?

  • SteveLA

    Neil

    Sure nothing says “vote for me” to someone looking to find work, or a small business owner struggling with quarterly taxes, or a middle class family trying to deal with increasing taxation in CA than a candidate starting out the general election conversation with a good discussion of how did you put it “mass infanticide in this state”.

    While the issue of abortion is an important one, it’s not the sort of bread and butter issues that people in CA are looking for leadership on, matter of fact they have rejected most attempts to restrict abortion through the initiative process, by the way CA has also passed legislation and funding for stem cell research which shows how far left the electorate is on these issues. I personally think the electorate is wrong, at least on simple limited abortion restrictions like parental notification.

    While Fleishman at least tries to paint the issue of closing the primary in other terms, you’re pretty consistent in why you want this move, and you’re probably more truthful about your support than other supporters of this move.

    Speaking of delusion, if you think that turning hard right on social issues will increase the number of Republican seats in the CA assembly, or for that matter win state wide elections, knock yourself out, it won’t. As you point out, closing the primaries will most likely increase the number of winners in the CA R primaries who agree with you. If that results in CA D’s breaking the state Constitutional 3/4 approval barrier by beating hard right candidates, then at least CA R’s who beleive abortion is the paramount issue will have stood up for what they beleive in.

  • Achance

    to vote will have the effect of moving Party to the right. It doesn’t eliminate Democra/media mischief, but it helps to reduce it.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    why did you argue with me and say it’s not about fiscal issues?

    Have I not been knocking this governor the whole time on fiscal issues?

    Have I not been praising our caucii the whole time?

    I barely write on social issues and this state here, except to a) praise the Prop that passed or b) to say abortion rules the roost here.

    Have I not been saying I’d rather have a consistent minority than a squishy majority, due to the supermajority budget requirement?

    I’ve laid out what I want quite plainly. Disagree if you must, but when you start lecturing me on what this is really about, I start to lose respect for the discussion because I feel like you’re just following a script.

    Oh and I don’t buy Fleischman as the new boogeyman for a second. The idea that he’s some pro-tax, pro-spending guy is ludicrous. He’s been constantly pessimistic on those issues, never satisfied with how many concessions we did get.

  • The_Gadfly

    I didn’t participate in Operation Chaos, but it wasn’t simply being pushed in states where you could ask for any ballot. Rush was urging Republicans to register as Democrats to muck up the results even in States with closed primaries, unless they had a critical in state race pending. At the time I was agnostic about the tactical effectiveness of this approach. It grates against my “put up the good fight, win or lose” instincts, but I also know I haven’t been an infantryman in these fights and don’t like to remove weapons those who have deem useful.

    I understand you are just trying to make it clear that registered Democrats aren’t eligible to vote in Republican primaries in California. Good luck in your fight. California was one of the key states in the previous conservative resurgence. We need you in the fight again, and I know that won’t happen until your local issues are cleared.

  • drothgery

    because I think it’s a pretty basic principle that parties’ nominees for elective office should be decide by their members and no one else. But lets not kid ourselves here — we’ve lost nearly every major statewide race with conservatives and RINOs, with millionaire neophytes and with career politicians, with unknowns and with celebreties.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If nothing’s working, let’s try something different. Like change how we pick our candidates?

  • SteveLA

    Neil, got projection?

    Let’s start with the Fleischman projection. Where did I make an assertion that he’s pro-tax, pro-spending guy? He’s not that I know of, but he is pretending that his proposal is anything but a grab of the horns of power in the CA Republican party for the social conservative base with a shift to the right desired, that I’ll state plainly as my view of this move.

    To your credit you have been very open about why you want to see the primary closed in this blog and many others, no doubt about where you stand.

    But let’s be clear about what a hard right turn by the CA Republican party could mean. Hard Right candidates who only please the CA Republican base and who might not get elected in the general could result in a loss of enough seats in the CA Senate to allow Democrats to pass a budget without Republican approval, i.e. over 3/4 of the seats. Gerrymandering of safe R and safe D seats is only going to last so long and we need candidates in CA general elections that appeal to only voters that don’t buy into the Fully Monty of the R. base.

    Maybe you’re willing to find out what a harder Right turn of the CA party will do by closing the doors to DTS voters in the CA Senate and Assembly general election races, as a middle class tax payer fed up with the CA assembly tax and send ways, not so much for me.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • SteveLA

    California_red

    That terrible, the local party organization should have responded. The fact that the Libertarian folks did respond is interesting, but the CA Libertarians have a very weird record still and even stranger stances on drugs, law and order and host of other issues so they are way too loopy for me.

    I’ll just stay a CA R like I have been sense 1979 and vote for who I think is the best candidate no matter what the letter behind their name is come the general. It wasn’t the Girlyman Governator last election by the way.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    So I voted the libertarian in 06.

  • SteveLA
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    People like us can possibly take *leadership* roles in our local parties if they’re stagnant and inactive.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    But those were good bits.

  • Cheryl

    I too signed with CCRP and all I’ve gotten are a couple emails.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    And I’m not kidding.

  • IJB

    At least, statewide. Ditto IL, NY, NJ, WA, etc.

    But Neil’s point (which is the correct one) is that we need to get control of the *down-ballot* offices.

    I honestly don’t expect the GOP to win too many statewide offices until the demographics of this state drastically change (and I’m kind of hoping the current recession will do that).

    But we *need* to get the Maldonados and the Adams *out* of the CA Legislature, and the Mary Bonos out of Congress.

  • Cheryl

    and someone needs to say it.

    Ronald Reagan was pro life. Ronald Reagan cleaned the democrat’s clock in California. I don’t think we have to overthink it.

    I’ve learned something growing up in redstate CA and currently living in the bluestate CA. Blue staters don’t get out much. They see a little organic dairy farm in Napa Valley and assume that’s how CA feeds the country. Ask someone from LA where Manteca is, they just figure its in Arizona.

    I’d be willing to bet we have as churches per capita on average as any other state.

  • Cheryl

    and those crazy ladies won’t leave me alone, lol.

  • skorrent1

    First you say: “CA is not exactly liberal, and is definitely not social conservative,” then it’s: “CA has also passed legislation and funding for stem cell research which shows how far left the electorate is”. But no mention of the Prop 8 defeat of gay marriage. Was that not a “social conservative” issue? Government funding of anything is not only a social but also a fiscal issue.

    At a time when more of the electorate, even in CA, self-identify as conservative then as liberal (or progressive), it might be nice to find some GOP candidates that openly reflect that trend, even if a “conservative” in CA might be somewhat to the left of one in TX.

  • Achance

    and have family in California so I spend a bit of time there. I also knew a lot of Aah-nald’s people back when I was still working.

    Like much of The West, CA is more libertarian, even libertine, than liberal. Government off my back and out of my pocket resonates quite well there – even with people who religiously vote Democrat. What resonates especially well there is government out of my bedroom and out of my “recreational” substances and activities. A pro-life, social conservative with religious ties would be almost impossible to elect to statewide office there, just as it would be next to impossible in OR, WA, and, yes, even in Alaska. Even Alaska Republicans who are rock-ribbed defense conservatives, fiscal conservatives of a sort unique to here, and personallly fairly socially conservative, won’t make an issue out of social issues, especially abortion. Frank Murkowski didn’t in campaigning but did as governor make an issue of abortion and gay rights issues; it got him third place in his own primary. Today’s conservative icon, Sarah Palin, never made an issue of abortion or gay rights, dropped the appeal on a same-sex partners case and refused to bring up a parental notice bill – a major source of conflict between her and Sen. Lyda Green.

    In most Western states, there’s more bars than churches, pot is de facto legal as is most other recreational personal drug use, and prying into people’s personal lives and peeking through keyholes really isn’t the prescription for getting elected. I know how unfair that perception of Republicans is, at least in some places, but the Ds have done a good job of creating that perception of Republicans. The Ds have convinced a lot of people that Republicans would burn them at the stake if they could. That’s the image Rs have to deal with to get elected statewide in lots of places in the West.

    Other than my mother in law, my CA in-laws are my age and younger. If anything, they’re more fiscally conservative than I am. They’d fit in real well, maybe better than I, in my cousin’s redneck setup bar at the city limit of my home town in Georgia. But, they’re rock-ribbed Democrats and it is about abortion and other “personal determination” issues. My M-I-L is a Democrat because she’s close enough to the Depression Era mentality that she’s convinced that Republicans will take away her SS, Medicare, and MediCal – a different political dynamic from the younger ones.

    I don’t have an easy answer. At a statewide Party level, I’m kinda on the SteveLA side of this; I’ve seen Alaska turned over to the Communists because the hard right couldn’t be satisfied with a right-enough candidate. But at the district level, I lean to the Neil side of things. Districts should elect the district and from my experience, a closed primary would make a lot of CA districts pretty hard right so long as they could work the calculus on social issues.

  • Achance
  • Achance
  • ColdWarrior

    Before I moved to Maricopa County I lived in Los Angeles County. I was a registered Republica. Rather than do more in the Republican Party, instead my political activity centered around fight the Democrats’ passage of the so-called assault weapons ban. My efforts included working for Republican candidates, but not a a precinct committeeman. Instead, I spent more time tryiing to motiviate gun owners to join the NRA, Gun Owners of America, etc.

    Looking back, my first priority should have been being a precinct committeeman and a volunteer in the Republican Party.

    california_red, it’s the chicken and the egg. The reason you didn’t get a call back is probably because the phones are staffed by unpaid volunteers. The Republican Party will call you back when they get more volunteers to man the phones. But they won’t get more people to man the phones because now they don’t have enough volunteers.

    I keep saying this here. There is no such thing as a monolithic, powerful Republican Party apparatus. The Party is at half strenght nationwide. It’s worse in Maricopa County. Think of it, the county that produced our last presidential candidate has no full time web master (but may soon, as I recruited a volunteer from among the ranks of our new precinct committeeman). Much of the elected Party leadership fall into the “good heart, empty head” category when it comes to strategy for recruiting more people to come into the Party and how to raise money. In Maricopa County, if you become a precinct committeeman, there’s a sixty per cent chance you’ll be the only precinct committeeman in your precinct. That means, automatically, you are the “captain” of the precinct. I assume it’s much the same in L.A. County; probably much less so behind the “Orange Curtain” down in Orange County.

    Regardless, the important is to GET TO YOUR COUNTY GOP ORGANIZATION AND TELL THEM YOU WANT TO BECOME A PRECINCT COMMITTEEMAN. If someone doesn’t call you back, call again. If that doesn’t work, drive the HQ. You’ll probably find it to me very short-staffed and generally crying for volunteers.

    Ask yourself — how much time, money, and effort, per month, is the future of my country worth to me and my children and their children.

    I’ve already answered those questions for myself.

    If someone doesn’t call me back from the AZ GOP or Maricopa County GOP, I know why — because they are severely short-staffed. So I become the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.

    You should, too.

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • cringinghere

    I was shocked over Whitman’s clueless gushing over the communist Van Jones. It seems that she really didn’t know a thing about him, but wanted an excuse to say how much she loves “green” nonsense. She is now off my list. So it the tax hiker Poizner.

  • ColdWarrior

    I was in a hurry. I think you all can figure out the gist of what I was trying to say and which words were left out and mispelled.
    Again, sorry.

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • SteveLA

    Art

    Nice summation, but consider the issue of Gerrymandering.

    Gerrymandering produces districts with “safe” D and “safe” R seats, and politicians in those seats really are the root cause of a lot of problems confronting the state. If you’re safe you tend to not want to do the hard work required to balance the budget in the state or have the real discussion about what the limits of government and taxation should be.

    When, not if in my view, the power to draw political boundaries is removed from the power of the elected class there is going to be heck to pay on both sides. I think the move to close off the primary system only helps to create politicians who’s appeal might be wide, but only an inch deep.

    With the initiative system out here in CA, someone will get around to putting up one that takes power away from political elites to set districts and there will be a major power shift. The anger in the state electorate might make this even sooner rather than later.

  • Achance

    and hard right representatives. This is a tough one, especially for those of us who have the USDOJ looking over our shoulders at every re-apportionment. If you do it with the Legislature, it is a political free-for-all. If you do it with a commission, it is a political free-for-all. Either way, the Courts wind up sorting it out and I hate that even more. I think I’m most comfortable with the Legislature. That way, me and my buddies get to gether to screw you and your buddies until enough of your buddies get tired of getting screwed and you can vote us out. God, I love the smell of democracy in the morning!

  • SteveLA

    Art

    The abomination called majority minority districts draw by courts are a major issue of mine. Under the heading of undoing past injustice, courts creating racial gerrymandering is an evil that make my blood boil. Of course I was caught up in forced busing of the late 60′s early 70′s as cannon fodder for the then Dixecrat Democrats, so I do tend to have a bias.

  • Achance

    is that they tend to elect total whack jobs that are completely ineffective, e.g., Cynthia McKinney. We have some of it here since the USDOJ figures us honky dogs can’t count Native votes correctly.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Campbell or Poizner?

  • IJB

    Please explain…

  • Cheryl

    I heard Poizner on local radio, he impressed me, but I don’t know much about him except he’s got money.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    “The move to close the CA primary probably will increase DTS registrations….”

    There is zero evidence for this. Zero. One could as easily argue that a closed CA Republican primary will increase Republican registrations, as people who wish to participate do what’s needed to do so.

    Opponents of a closed primary need to address two things:

    1) Why the post-1998 implosion of the CA GOP coincides with the opening of the CA GOP primaries.
    2) Why non-Republicans get to pick Republican nominees, anyway.

    Personally, I have faith in my party’s rank and file — of all partisan and ideological persuasions. Why the opponents of an open primary don’t is a mystery.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    Keep an eye out for the next quarter’s report. DeVore’s fundrasing plan is, believe it or not, going — well, according to plan! ;-)

  • SteveLA

    Former Congresscritter from CA 12th and 15th. Lost big time to DiFi in his run for Senate in 2000.

    Good fiscal conservative, not so much on social issues being a supporter of abortion rights and gay rights which is pretty much how his old district which is D leaning in San Jose views that matter.

    Has nowhere near the personal wealth of Poizner so it iwll come down to how good a job at fund raising he does.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Of course it would be “temporary,” as all tax hikes are promised to be…

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    You’ve written 3/4 as key number, but budget approval is 2/3. I think 2/3 is also the vote for legislature-initiated ballot measures (it could be a majority, but it’s not 3/4).

    The only major 3/4 requirement I know of is the number of states required to ratify an amendment to the U.S. constitution.

  • SteveLA

    While former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell has come out in favor of Prop. 1A, Poizner and Whitman have both declared they?re against it.

    Pretty much seals the deal for me, I won’t vote for anyone who supported Prop 1A, which is what I think you were talking about.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • SteveLA

    No matter where you come down on social issues, anyone who is for giving more tax dollars to the Democrats in Sacramento is not someone who I am going to vote for…full stop.

    In all the CA elections coming up, first thing I’ll be checking on will be how they came out on Prop 1A and how they voted or acted on any of the recent CA budget battles. Anyone voting to give CA Democrats more to spend is as they said in the Godfather, “Dead to me”.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    The problem is the way “government interference” is defined.

    The Democrats have succeeded in reducing “governmental interference” in private affairs to strictly sex-related behavior. The have also succeeded in convincing much of the public that “social conservatives” have a monopoly on “interference in private affairs”.

    Specifically, abortion and gay marriage are now the sole determinent of whether one is viewed as supporting governmental interference in private affairs, for all practical purposes. Either you support the unrestricted right to abortions and gay marriage or you are an evil social conservative who wants government in the bedroom.

    (Pornography seems to have lost its power mainly because it’s hard to get most of the electorate really riled up about it, and the drug laws against marijuana are mostly federal, I think, so this doesn’t carry much weight, that is, the drug issue crosses left-right lines anyway; it’s the sex issues that absorbs the press).

    And I think even gay marriage is going to shrink in controversy within the next decade as the issue gets resolved at the ballot box or as state courts rule.

    Which really means for all practical purpose, the whole issue of government interference boils down to abortion.

    My point here is two-fold:

    1) First, you’re not going to get opponents to shut up about abortion. This is an issue that is not going away because it’s literally a life-and-death issue.

    Furthermore, the pro-life position primariliy is about protecting the life and rights of our most vulnerable population, not about trying to get into bedrooms.

    2) Rather, the point is to change the ground rules, just like Dick Cheney refuses to accept the biased definition that his interviewers try to force upon him.

    There was a poster earlier today who made an excellent comment regarding just which side of the political spectrum believes in government interference in private affairs. He notes how the left/Democrats want the government to expand its power over our health care choices (Keep your laws off my body! should be our rallying cry, not the left’s!), about the food we eat, the cars we drive, and almost every other sphere of activity except for abortion (and again, as argued above, charging pro-lifers as government interventionist is a false charge).

    And opposition to gay marriage is more about preserving a 3,000+-year status quo and really can’t be construed as “government in the bedroom”; it’s the “pro” side that wants to change the government’s role. (I don’t want to theadjack and start another pointless debate over gay marriage, just to say that accusing opponents of wanting government in the bedroom specifically should be out of bounds.)

    Conversely, it is primarily the modern right and Republicans who want the government out of our lives.

    What we need to do is to push back and shout from the rooftops in areas of people’s lives how the Democrats want government to run our lives – rather than allowing the argument to be solely centered around sex – and specifically around abortion.

    For instance, on Cap-and-Trade, let’s talk about how the law will bring government regulation of every device with a motor, How ObamaCare will expose our private medical records to government bureaucrats and the IRS. Or the efforts to create thought-crimes, and all the other government-coerced social engineering that the left is advocating.

    We should be attacking the privacy violators of the left, their advocacy of government interference, not allow ourselves to be put on the defensive. It’s late, but we’ve got to change the rules.

  • SteveLA

    Neil,

    I knew you’d finally see the light on fiscal matters….three two…one….blast off….just kidding.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Social conservatives/Republicans don’t need to be on the defensive about being advocates of “government interference in private lives” just because we are pro-life.

    Rather, we should seize the mantle of less government interference by pointing the comprehensive range of areas in out lives that the left wants the government to control.

    The best defense is a good offense.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    When I’m screaming at you into the screen :-)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    conservatives should find common ground in being for local and state power under federalism so that the like minded can congregate together for maximum happiness pursuits.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    exceeded any perceived designs of people that simply want to preserve marriage definitions and save babies. Then, when the left wants to monopolize health care, they are taking away one’s very right to stay alive.

  • noufa

    How about George Deukmejian or Bill Simon?

    Convince me that closed primaries produce more electable Republicans. It seems the last 10 years have proven the opposite.

    No doubt there are thoughtful voters (like you) who are uncomfortable with the fringe elements of both parties. But you won?t change anything by undemocratically electing more Arnolds. That only disenfranchises conservatives & encourages us to complain about squishes.

    Most DTS centrists are (unlike you) too lazy to join a party or think about the issues. The open-primary system rewards their lack of engagement. Their lack of engagement results in a less informed voting public.

    So your argument is essentially that uninformed voters should have more influence. Maybe you ought to reconsider your signature.

  • SteveLA

    skorrent1

    So Prop 8 proves that CA really is socially conservative, see they passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. I voted Yes on 8 by the way. Interesting, but wrong.

    Could it be that Libertarians, the African American Community, the Latino community got tired of San Fran liberals and nice folks in matching outfits telling us what civil rights were all about and how not allowing gays to “marry” we were holding back some great civil right?

    Could it be that people were fed up with Gods in Black robes telling us what to do, to overturn laws we the people had voted for in the form of Prop 22 on the most specious of arguments?

    The knownfact that Prop 8 signaled a turn to the Right in CA in terms of social issues is a nice knowfact, but it’s mostly wrong. When the issue returns to the ballot as a clean up or down vote and the gay folks don’t oversell, something like gay marriage will most likely pass, or at least get very close and eventually pass.

    Somewhat to the left of Texas….boy howdy.

  • noufa

    I believe that a closed primary will result in more conservatives & think this is a good thing.

  • SteveLA

    civil

    Nice arguments but they don’t sell in CA. We can’t even pass a parental notification law, let alone any of what you are promoting.

    Do you live in CA or have spent any time out here? CA it is a fairly liberal or more properly libertine state in a general sense. Archance summarizes CA pretty well up thread and he also summarizes what happens when the power of Communist Democrats runs unchecked by a Republican party gone into the mode of seeking those who can fit through the eye of needle on social issues.

  • noufa

    Are right here:

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/hist_stats_gen_prim/historical-voter-reg-primary-jun08.pdf

    DTS numbers doubled after opening primaries. I’ve always been a pretty staunch conservative. Yet I initially registered DTS. Why not? I still get to vote in Republican primaries.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    I think you misunderstood the thrust of my argument. Elaboration will have to wait until tomorrow, though.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    Thanks for posting the link. You’ve provided massive support for the closed-primary case.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    I guess if your definition of “good fiscal conservatism” includes endorsement of a fuel-tax hike and the odious tax-hiking Proposition 1A, that’s true.

    I’m shocked any self-professed conservative would say this about the likes of Campbell.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Too much else happening, but here’s something more.

    I agree that pro-life candidates have a rather dismal track record in statewide campaigns these past few years.

    And as I’ve written before, find me a credible fiscal conservative who happens also to be a social “liberal” (by that narrow definition above of pro-abortion and pro gay marriage) and I’ll support them over a weaker social “conservative”.

    However, fiscal conservative-social liberals seem rarer than passenger pigeons from what I can see. Almost all social liberals I see are also big-government advocates too.

    But hey, give me some names and I’ll take a look.

    In any case, from my perch in the Bay Area, most of the people who identify themselves as Democrats or who vote for Democrats have a visceral aversion to Republicans. They’ve bought the caricature hook-and-sinker (Democrats for the working people, Republicans are rich people for Big Business Democrats care about people, Republicans are heartless, etc,) that voting for a Republican doesn’t even enter into their conciousness. These people dispised McCain – and for these people, it wouldn’t matter whether a Republican candidate was for abortion, they’d still vote for the Democrat because the Democratic party is the reliable supporter of abortion.

    In other words, the current rules of the game eliminate a substantial portion of voters from the Republicans from the outset. And so long as Republicans accept the caricatures, they’re in deep trouble no matter what position they hold on abortion and gay marriage.

    The point is that the Republicans have to wage two battles. The first, as I described above, is to start to redefine the stereotypes. Point out the big money interests behind the CA Democrats. Hammer on how the Public Workers Unions have bought the legislatures and are bankrupting the state with their pensions and their excessive numbers. Explain how the Republican alternatives will help working people and demonstrate who’s really on the side of the working people.

    And explain how reducing government regulations strangling business is hurting the state, and so on. The point is to turn the tables and help voters to see that things have changes and its the Democrats whose outdated ideas are making things worse.

    And in line with that, when we run pro-life candidates, let’s start hammering on just which party is the one that wants government running lives. Expand people’s vision, get them out of the narrow ruts.

    This may not work in 2010 to be sure or evern 2012; we’ve got decades of message neglect to work with.

    And certainly in the current state of affairs, I would push on the fiscal conservative case because that is where people are most open to a change in perspective.

    But pro-life is winning the hearts-and-minds gradually, so I don’t want to shirk back for illusory political gain – but we need to emphasize the humanity of our position, protecting the vulnerable, rather than making opponents into villains.

    (And as I mentioned, my opposition to gay marriage is primarily directed against the courts declaring by fiat that it is a fundamental right. This is something that should be handled at the legislature or the ballot box, and those with the most votes win – at least until the next vote.)

    I almost forgot the second front – that is having attractive candidates who don’t fit the stereotype, but who can come across as caring as they defend conservative policies as caring. The best programs and philosophy won’t get heard if we don’t have consistent messengers.