AD71 Watch: Do Recent Miller-Blais Charges Even Mattter?
Posted by: Jubal | 03/18/2008 1:26 PM
As OC Blog readers have seen during the past week (and as Martin Wisckol noted over at Total Buzz), the campaign warships U.S.S. Jeff Miller and U.S.S. Neil Blais have been exchanging broadsides.
Once A Democrat...
First, the Miller campaign fired off a press release slamming Neil Blais for having been a registered Democrat until about a decade ago.
It's one thing if a candidate switches parties a year or two before seeking partisan office. that can and should set off alarm bells that this such is a conversion of convenience, not conviction -- one taking place purely as an expedient.
But a decade ago?
Furthermore, political parties are supposed to grow partly by convincing members of other parties to change their allegiance -- so it makes little sense to me to turn that into a disqualification for seeking your party's nomination. If Bill Bennett -- who didn't change his registration from Democrat to Republican until he'd already served in the Reagan Administration for six years -- offered to endorse Miller, he wouldn't turn it down.
Multiplying CRA Units...
Ever since losing the CRA endorsement to Jeff Miller, the Blais campaign has been complaining about the "shell" units created in the Riverside County portion of AD71, where Miller is from. Actually, they were complaining before that, but now that Blais lost the CRA fight, the decibel of the complaining about "gaming the rules" has been ratcheted up.
Whatever happened to losing fair and square. Both campaigns knew the rules. Either side could recruit people to start up new CRA units in order to bolster their odds of winning the CRA endorsement. The Miller campaign did. The Blais campaign didn't. Surprise -- Miller won, Blais lost at CRA.
It's hard for me to get worked up because a competitive primary results in the formation of more CRA units. Last time I looked, that's a good thing.
Once A Democrat...
First, the Miller campaign fired off a press release slamming Neil Blais for having been a registered Democrat until about a decade ago.
It's one thing if a candidate switches parties a year or two before seeking partisan office. that can and should set off alarm bells that this such is a conversion of convenience, not conviction -- one taking place purely as an expedient.
But a decade ago?
Furthermore, political parties are supposed to grow partly by convincing members of other parties to change their allegiance -- so it makes little sense to me to turn that into a disqualification for seeking your party's nomination. If Bill Bennett -- who didn't change his registration from Democrat to Republican until he'd already served in the Reagan Administration for six years -- offered to endorse Miller, he wouldn't turn it down.
Multiplying CRA Units...
Ever since losing the CRA endorsement to Jeff Miller, the Blais campaign has been complaining about the "shell" units created in the Riverside County portion of AD71, where Miller is from. Actually, they were complaining before that, but now that Blais lost the CRA fight, the decibel of the complaining about "gaming the rules" has been ratcheted up.
Whatever happened to losing fair and square. Both campaigns knew the rules. Either side could recruit people to start up new CRA units in order to bolster their odds of winning the CRA endorsement. The Miller campaign did. The Blais campaign didn't. Surprise -- Miller won, Blais lost at CRA.
It's hard for me to get worked up because a competitive primary results in the formation of more CRA units. Last time I looked, that's a good thing.
CATEGORY:
AD71 Watch
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Jubal - the creation of more CRA units is a good thing if the units actually have staying power. Lets see where all those Corona units are in a year or two. Also, keep in mind that those 6 Corona units represent roughly 125,000 people - just a little more than Mission Viejo, which has 1 unit.
Effectively what that does is water-down the CRA endorsement. The question should really be, is the CRA endorsement even worth having?
I would like to see 60 units for 125,000 people, not 6. All this tells me is that Blais does not have his act together.
Lets see where all those Corona units are in a year or two.
I agree. Another reason for a cessation of the current complaining about "shell" units.
Also, keep in mind that those 6 Corona units represent roughly 125,000 people - just a little more than Mission Viejo, which has 1 unit.
Maybe Mission Viejans can start up 5 more units.
Matt.
Mission Viejo's SRA, as is the case for every CRA unit, I think, has a very specific geographic territory as part of it's By-laws. As such the SRA cannot be broken up into multiple units.
I failed to include Aliso Viejo in my prior comments which are also part of the SRA membership.
I did raise the issue of multiple units being formed within 48 hours in Corona when the deck was stacked in favor of Mitt Romney. After sending that report to the entire list of CRA unit presidents I did hear back from northern Ca presidents who agreed with my concern.
I also shared my concern with CRA president Mike Spence months ago.
Let me also add that some of these new Corona unit presidents do not even live or work in that City.
At the end of the day this action waters down future CRA endorsements to benefit one candidate.
Larry, it's called politics. You are right!