Scott Baugh, Chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, has penned a response to some commentaries on this blog penned by Chip Hanlon and Matt Cunningham, highly critical of the Orange County Republican Party's process for considering endorsements in local, so called "non partisan" races.  I will add by way of a one phrase "pre-commentary" that there is no such thing as a non-partisan office.  Scott's piece appears below...

From Scott Baugh...

Chip Hanlon is a friend.  When he writes something disparaging about the OCGOP and it get’s forwarded to me, I read it with interest - and this time with disappointment.  I’m not disappointed because Chip disagrees with some action taken by the OCGOP.  Chip often goes aggressively down a path with a vengeance only to realize that he has overplayed or misunderstood the facts.  He did that when we endorsed Shawn Nelson – then he changed his mind and ended up supporting the endorsement.  Chip’s comments about the Orange County Republican Party Endorsement process similarly is an overplay or misunderstanding of the facts.  

Let’s start with the endorsement process in general.  A perfect process? Of course not.  In fact, I recommended abolishing the process because the results were often puzzling to me.  Moreover, the fallout from folks who did not get their way was often immature.  A regular refrain that I hear is to abolish the process the moment somebody’s candidate loses – even if there were good reasons for the loss.  Instead of abolishing the process, the Committee decided overhaul the process and to place more objectivity into the analysis as opposed to somebody just lining up enough votes with their friends on the committee.  Of course, it is still not perfect but democratic bodies rarely are. With the passage of the open primary, the process will even get more challenging because it is anticipated that the CRP will weigh in on endorsements in partisan primaries.        

An additional item that should be addressed is for those that criticize the process but do not participate in the process.  It’s a little like a grand jury.  If the committee only hears one side of the story, the committee is more likely to buy into that story.  Elections are all about competing agendas.  Much like the adversarial process in our legal system, the committee necessarily relies on both sides coming forward with facts and arguments pertaining to those competing agendas so that the committee can provide a recommendation that is rooted in facts and sound arguments.

With this foregoing as a backdrop, I will address endorsement recommendations in Orange, Mission Viejo and Huntington Beach, with a significant commentary about Huntington Beach.  

In Orange, we have two Republicans running for Mayor.  Both are friends of mine.  The Central Committee should not endorse in this race, and I believe that will be the outcome.  In fact, I have asked both candidates to voluntarily withdraw their requests.  A bloody fight that yields no endorsement for either side is not good for them or the party.  

In Mission Viejo, I do not know all the facts there so my commentary will necessarily be incomplete.  I am told that the recommendation of the Endorsement Committee was based on the evidence presented.  I wasn’t there so I don’t know but the committee cannot be expected to divine a correct outcome without information from both sides.  In order to get this information out, both sides have to show up and present.  If there is incomplete information, those with a vested interest must come forward and present that information.  If they do not, their criticism of the process is rather meaningless to me.

Huntington Beach is a little different for me than Orange or Mission Viejo because I live in Huntington Beach.  I am very familiar with the players here, so I will take a little more time to respond specifically to Chip’s comments and criticisms.   

First, Chip calls the Endorsement Process “cluster f-ed” with regard to Huntington Beach.  Nice choice of words – the type normally chosen when well reasoned analysis is lacking.

Next, Chip likes what the OCGOP did in the endorsement of Matt Harper.   Matt is a proven, longstanding conservative who has been fighting in the trenches for more than 15 years for conservative values and candidates.  Thank you Chip for your vote of confidence.  By the way, Matt is the only candidate that has actually been endorsed so far by the OCGOP and his proven commitment to limited government sealed his endorsement - so far – so good.    

Next, Chip takes issue with the endorsement committee’s recommendation for Billy O’Connell.  If fact, Chip says Billy was “Denied.”  That’s a nice pejorative word, and it is wrong.  The fact is that the endorsement committee made no recommendation for Mr. O’Connell.  This means that the full committee must make its decision without a recommendation from the sub-committee but that really begs the question:  Why did the endorsement committee make no recommendation of Mr. O’Connell?

One of the reasons is that Mr. O’Connell gave money to Democrats.  A sin?  Not necessarily – as Chip points out.  What Chip fails to mention are the Democrats that Mr. O’Connell gave money to.  First, there is the contribution to Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.  Chip would have his readers believe that she is just a Democrat – a garden variety, harmless, well-meaning Democrat.  That’s like saying Michael Jordan is just a basketball player or Tiger Woods is just a golfer.  No, the fact of the matter is that Sanchez is not only a Democrat, she is a liberal democrat.  Sanchez deceitfully masquerades as a conservative “blue dog” Democrat when she is in fact a liberal lap dog for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Sanchez faithfully voted with Pelosi, Reid and Obama on the stimulus bill that nobody wanted, the health care bill that nobody read and the Cap & Trade bill that we cannot afford. She is precisely the kind of Democrat that is leading the economic destruction of this country. She’s not a harmless little ole Democrat who received a contribution from Mr. O’Connell.  In point of fact, Sanchez is the number one target of Orange County Republicans for removal from office.  Oh, did I mention that Sanchez wants to impose the largest tax increase in the history of the United States by refusing to support an extension of the Bush tax cuts.  Well, I digress. Is this contribution by itself fatal?  I don’t know but let’s move on to the other Democrat that Chip conveniently fails to reveal – Senator Lou Correa.  

Is Correa another garden variety harmless Democrat?  Let’s review the bidding here.  Correa authored the original legislation that gave public employees the right to retire with a 3 at 50 formula.  For those unfamiliar with the formula, it allows public employees to retire at 90% of their full pay at 50 years of age.  With spiking, the pay often exceeds 100%.  Even Chip would acknowledge that this is horrible policy that is leading to the fiscal ruin of our cities, counties and state.  Beyond leading this fiscally calamitous charge, Correa voted for the largest tax increase of any state in the history of the United States.  This is actually not shocking.  After all, he is a Democrat.  What is shocking is that Correa promised the voters in his district that he would not vote for a tax increase.   Why did he make that promise?  It is because he was in a tight race in 2006 and was going to lose his race without a tax promise to the voters.  As it turns out, Correa won his race by less than 1,400 votes with his promise and then turned around an voted for the largest tax increase in the history of state taxes.  

Huge tax increases, bloated pensions and a betrayal of his word to the voters.  This is the type of Democrat (and applies to some Republicans as well) that has the American people up in arms about not trusting government or elected officials.  What Chip calls “a rule” forbidding contributions to Democrats is not a rule at all.  Rather, it is a factually based question that allows the committee to dig down and attempt to ferret out whether the individual seeking the endorsement can be counted on to sustain a limited government platform.  Apparently, the sub-committee was not persuaded that he was ready for that charge and it punted the question to the full committee.  It may not have been helpful to Mr. O’Connell that he had never been seen at a Republican Party event prior to his request for an endorsement.  This alone sets him far apart from Matthew Harper.  And, yes Chip, his lack of familiarity to the committee members, coupled with doubts about his viability were contributing factors to the committee’s recommendation.  

Is Mr. O’Connell a good Republican?  I presume so.  Are there harmless explanations for his contributions to Democrats?  I presume so.  Was the endorsement committee right to punt the issue to the full committee?  Absolutely.  The endorsement committee is tasked with red flagging issues, facts and concerns about candidates – especially those who have no history in the party.  The committee did its job – and did it well.  Mr. O’Connell is free then to come to the full committee and seek the endorsement.  Mr. O’Connell would be wise to call the committee members first, explain why he gave those contributions and then seek their support.  After all, the endorsement of the party does not come looking for the candidates.  Rather, it is the candidates who are seeking the endorsement.  Personal communication with those who have the votes goes a long way to resolving doubts about one’s commitment to limited government.  To my knowledge, Mr. O’Connell has not called a single member of the committee.      

Next is Barbara Delgleize.  Barbara represents the top of the field for the candidates currently running for office in Huntington Beach.  She will be a great council member.  With respect to the endorsement committee, however, Barbara has social views that are out of step with not only the OCGOP but also with the majority of Californians.  Barbara believes in gay marriage – the majority of Californians do not.  She also does not believe in certain restrictions for minors with respect to abortions, including parental consent.  The majority of Californians disagree with her.  Will she vote on these issues as a councilmember?  Not likely.  Are these issues relevant for endorsement committee’s consideration?  Absolutely.  There is a general distrust among conservative of those who claim to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal simply because it is very rare for somebody to be intellectually divided like that.  Sure, it is possible to be both but our experience is that Republican candidates that are socially liberal tend to be the first ones to get in line to increases taxes or be liberal on other economic issues.  You don’t have to look any further than our current Governor to see this.  In fact, our Governor was sold to us as one who would be economically conservative so we shouldn’t worry about his liberal views on social issues.  Given that backdrop, it is easy to understand why OCGOP Republicans have a mistrust of those who claim to be economically conservative while being socially liberal.

I find Barbara to be very personable, engaging and credible.  I trust that she will be a very good member of the council.  I believe that she will tackle the fiscal issues facing our city, including the pension mess.  In fact, her view on pensions precluded her from receiving the endorsement of the police union.  Good for her!  I will be casting a vote for her.  But I draw my conclusions because I know her.  Barbara, like Billy O’Connell is not known by the committee.  As stated above, it simply would be wise for candidates seeking the endorsement of the OCGOP to get to know the members of that body so that doubts about the candidates commitment to limited government can be mitigated.

The last person that Chip takes issue with is Fred Speaker.  Chip interviewed Mr. Speaker.  I read Chip’s post about the interview and was very concerned about Mr. Speaker’s answers.  I immediately contacted the endorsement committee members to inquire about his interview process.  I further asked the Chairman of the Endorsement Committee to follow up with Mr. Speaker to determine what his views were on Measure O.  What I have learned since then is illuminating.  Mr. Speaker’s concern about Measure O has to do more with ballot box budgeting rather than opposition to Measure O or to infrastructure commitments.   I don’t share his concern because I believe the voters rightfully cannot trust city council members to resist union influence to take infrastructure money and divert it to salaries and benefits.  Notwithstanding, I’m told that Mr. Speaker does, in fact, support Measure O.  If he does not, my assessment is that he will have difficulty in securing the endorsement of the OCGOP.  Digging deeper, however, you will find that Mr. Speaker believes in defined contributions for any new municipal hire – including police and fire.  This view can be very detrimental to his political health.  If there were four votes on the Huntington Beach City Council for defined contributions, the City would make tremendous strides in solving its fiscal challenges – including its infrastructure challenges that Measure O seeks to address.

With respect to the endorsement of candidates by police and fire unions, my proposal in January was for no candidate to receive help from the OCGOP if they took money or endorsement from public employee unions.  The entire Central Committee did not want to include endorsement for two reasons.  First, a candidate cannot always control whether he or she gets endorsed  (I find this to be a weak reason).  Second, some folks thought that there was no reason to antagonize the unions by refusing their endorsement.  Again, I disagreed with the approach but the OCGOP Central Committee wanted to start with the ban on contributions first and then assess how impactful the policy would be.  With that said, I have a healthy degree of skepticism for any candidate that seeks an endorsement from public employee unions.  Harry Sidhu’s endorsement by public employee unions, coupled with the $1.3 million dollars spent by them on his behalf is a prime reason why I have skepticism.  Mr. Speaker’s acceptance of the police union endorsement does in fact raise a suspicion in my mind.  His evasive answers on Measure O to Chip likewise raises a suspicion in my mind.  Are these fatal to his endorsement?  I don’t know.  I will say, however, that his commitment to support defined contribution plans for new hires reduces some of my concern.  Council members Devin Dwyer and Don Hanson are courageously leading this charge for defined contributions in Huntington Beach.  It would be great if they could get two more votes on the council to implement it.     

In conclusion, the decision of the OCGOP to take on public employee unions so that our cities, counties and state can gets their fiscal houses in order would be toothless if we did not actively endorse candidates.  Shawn Nelson and John Moorlach are leading this charge at the county level.  Ed Reno is leading this charge in Newport Beach.  Jim Righeimer is leading this charge in Costa Mesa.  Devin Dwyer and Don Hanson are leading this charge in Huntington Beach.  The list goes on and on.  The bottom line, however, is that we need reform minded majorities on each council to achieve this goal.  While our endorsement process is not perfect, we are making strides to change the dialogue in this county to effectuate fiscal sanity when it comes to public employee unions in specific, and limited government in general.

I’m certain that I have not addressed everybody’s concern in this lengthy commentary but I do hope that everybody has a  better understanding of the process.

As a side note, one commentator to Chip’s blog stated something to the effect that I should not be Chairman because I was partners with Mayor Willie Brown.  Actually, I was a partner in the International Law Firm of Mayer Brown with over 1,500 lawyers.  I have never met, spoken to or worked with Willie Brown.  There is a slight, but very meaningful difference in the spelling of “Mayer” and “Mayor.”  One should take note.