Being an active Republican you tend to get into conversations with other active Republicans on what internal policies are for the good of the party.  So in the interest of starting a discussion, that I hope will remain civil, I have drawn up 7 questions on the future of the Republican Party. I will give my answers to my own questions after filing closes and I have more time available. Any way here they are...

1. The Republican Party for as long as I can remember has held its convention two times a year, in the winter in Northern California and in the summer in Southern California.  This summer the party will hold its convention in Anaheim.  Should the Republican continue to hold its convention two times a year? Or should the party limit holding its convention once a year or once per every two years to save money?

2. The Assembly and State Senate Caucus' have in the past and will this year pay for the filing fees for races where only one Republican has filed, as have the Democrats.  The Republican Party of LA County has in the past and will this year hold a candidate school.  The state party is targeting certain races in swing districts where the party has a statistical chance of winning.  While, some former candidates have complained that more should be done for all candidates.  So, should the party focus resources on races where it has a statistical chance of winning? Or should the party do something for all candidates, and if so what should the party do? And why?

3. At this weekend's convention there was a vigorous debate and a close victory for the more detailed and conservative platform.  Gov. Schwarzenegger and others argued for the less detailed platform that they said gives our candidates more maneuvering room to define themselves.  While Mike Spence, my fellow contributor to redcounty.com and the editor of the LA County page, and others argued for the more detailed platform, that they said gives voters a clearer brand to identify with.  This issue is likely to come up at future conventions. So should the Republican Party switch to a less detailed platform or should the party continue to have a more detailed platform? And Why?

4. With allegations lingering from 2006, the Larry Craig incident over the summer and the indictment of Congressman Rick Renzi, some in the party have called for taking a zero tolerance approach to incumbents who either are corrupt or have the appearance of corruption, believing those types of incident killed us in 2006.  Others maintain that we should back our incumbents until they are proven by a court of law of some wrong doing.  So should the party exercise discipline by holding our incumbents to a higher standard and erase from the public mind any hint of us accepting scandal or should we back our incumbents until the law proves that they actually did something wrong? Why? And if so, how?

5. This Presidential season, various segments of the conservative base have expressed concern with the policies and/or history of many of our candidates in search of an idealized Reagnite clone.  Others believe electability should be a more important factor in deciding who our party should support.  So should Republicans hold all of our candidates to support the platform completely, should this mentality apply only in marquee races where the media is likely to pay attention, or should electability govern who we should support? Why?

6. I believe it was former Reagan campaign aide Stuart Spencer who in a L.A. Times article lamented that the Republican Party needed to build community help centers that would help inner city families gets themselves out of debt and keep their families together.  I ran across a more defined version of it later in a thought session between Tim Escobar and I on his second campaign after we had finished a precinct walk, we thought that by combining effective programs like those created by Crown Financial Ministries, Prison Ministries Fellowship and Focus on the Family with a micro-lending program.  The proposal is based on the belief that by showing these communities that currently rely on the government, the benefits of our conservative economic platform privately enacted, we would then reduce the need for these benefits, gain the trust and respect of these communities and help us unseat politicians like Maxine Waters and Diane Watson. Should the party create such a private organization? If so, how?

7.   There are some in the party who think that the party should not try and fill all ballot spots with a "warm body", but should instead focus those resources in races where the extra money might make a real difference between winning and losing and that Democrat incumbents in safe districts will move much of their money to more competitive seats anyway.  Others say that by having a Republican on the ballot we show the voters in each district that we have not forgotten the Republicans in those districts or make a bluff to keep incumbent Democrats in safe seat to not move all of thier money to more competitive races.  Which course of action should we take and why exactly?