Are you asking the same question of the other endorsees who probably didn't even ask for the endorsement? Others include:

Dave Cox
George Runner
Tony Strickland
Mike Villines
Audra Strickland
Anthony Adams
Brian Nestande
Jim Silva
Diane Harkey
Nathan Fletcher
John McCann

Those are just a few of the names on the list.

A better question may be one put to you Mike - What is the process for the CA Pro Life Council's endorsement? Is there a standard printed somewhere? And if so, is the fact that John Benoit voted for a budget which included abortion funding going to sway your decision at all? And if not, how are you going to explain that away?

Russ Bogh is saying whatever he needs to to whoever he needs to say it to. This is no surprise. His record is really pretty liberal on social issues.

Fact is, Benoit has always been pro-life, whereas Bogh "got religion" very recently when he decided to run for this office. I recall a comment appearing in a publication where Russell professes to be pro-choice.

I also believe that all budgets contain abortion funding, even the ones that Mr. Bogh voted for. To try to make an issue out of that is really misleading...but that won't stop Russell.

Benoit has introduced pro-life legislation. Russsell throws rocks.

Pro-life leaders endorse Benoit. Liberal social groups endorse Bogh.

Simple, really.

It was a trailer bill Benoit voted for which contained specific funding for abortion - it's been enough in the past for pro lifers to use to endorse against candidates/members. Plenty of Republicans who do vote for the budget also vote against trailer bills that contain abortion funding.

Which part of Bogh's record makes him socially liberal? He's always gotten the same or higher (than Benoit)scores on the conservative report cards - including the Pro Life Council and the CRA.

And again - is the same question regarding the Log Cabin Republican endorsement being asked of all the members and candidates they endorsed? What is Brian Nestande's response? How about Anthony Adams and Tony Strickland?

Ahhh, the old I voted for the budget but not the trailer bill routine.

That's like saying Bogh smoked pot but didn't inhale. Phony Bologna. Can he define what "is" is?

Russ Bogh is a Clinton Republican! He won't ask if you don't tell.

Mike-

You are sounding like a Stonewall Democrat who cannot undertand how someone could be gay and a Republican!

Here is a challenge for you: actually look at Log Cabin's 2008 Legislative Agenda:

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabinca/leg_2008.html

There are some twenty bills there that LCR has a position on. Show me five you disagree with and why!

As Director of California Log Cabin Republicans we want to be sure that you know we endorse Mike Spence heartily for President of CRA. We will leave it to you all to decide what our criteria is...

Russell? I thought he mostly "claimed" to he 3/4 Mormon. Isn't his slogan Jack Russell Bogh the Dog in the Race, or was it Rus'sell out to any one get a leg up?? I keep forgetting??

Several points people have missed .

1. I was writing about the Bogh endorsement because it doesn't make sense. People who have voting records that don't support the gay agenda got endorsed. Why? It makes no sense and it applies to others. Bogh is in a heated primary and it matters more here and the answers need to be more forthcoming from Log Cabin.

2. People endorsed without a voting record have to explain it. It coukld become a trust issue.

3. boifromtroy has the log cabin legislative agenda listed. There are several bills pending there I do oppose. This clearly wasn't the case as Benoit has two bills relating to illegals and guns that they supported, yet they endorsed Bogh. Again why a standard is necessary.

4. Attacking the endorsing process of other orgainzations doesn't mean the questions raised aren't valid. CRA endorsements are done by locals units by a 2/3rds vote. They use different criteria, that is their right. CPLC's is by the board. Better to answer the question that provoke organizations to get involved in a race they haven't gotten in ...yet.

5. James thanks for the endorsement.

Our endorsement process was on a case by case basis and focused most of all on issues related to being in favor of lower taxes, limited government and public safety. Because gays and lesbians have almost every right there is in California (other than marriage but that's inevitable) there is less need to focus on "gay issues" because there is nothing left legislators can do in future about that. We didn't talk to any candidates because we based decisions on how they were publicly presenting themselves the way voters make decisions. So no secret deals...sorry to disappoint you...

Nationwide polling done by Tony Fabrizio of Republicans found the party is older, more male, more white and more conservative. And those people said by 77% that it should be illegal to fire someone because they are gay or lesbian. (See the full poll on our website http://ca.logcabin.org) So we're moving on to looking at more "traditional" GOP issues. If you don't have a record in voting - so what. Won't matter cause there's nothing to vote on. (Marriage is a non issue because it passes regardless of how many Republicans oppose or support it). If you have a record we looked at who voted in favor of higher taxes and opposed them unless there were other factors to consider. (That's why Walters didn't get our vote. Raising taxes on senior citizens is anti-GOP) Sometimes the rest of the record was ok to endorse, sometimes it wasn't and other times we decided to offer no recommendation because there wasn't consensus.

People need to get over the gay stuff in the Party because the rest of the world has moved on. The only people shrieking about it these days are those found in airport men's rooms when not trying to convince the rest of us how anti-gay they are. (I don't mean Mike. We're perfectly happy to know he belongs to your team) So the short answer Mike is that gay issues figured in a much reduced way than it has in past because we're looking past this in the hopes that the Party will shut up about it so we can start winning elections again. The difference between CRA and Log Cabin Republicans seems to be they'd rather be right even if they are the last three people in the Party and we'd rather win. (CRA has lost almost every gay issue that they've challenged and tell me which gay issues the Rev. Lou has won on in the last five years?)Californians are happy to lower taxes, they aren't about to push gays out of their community and back into the closet. Polling on marriage alone shows 48% to 47% in California support marriage with the rest undecided. And for the record, we don't want to end traditional marriage, we want to be part of it. The so called gay agenda is raising children in healthy marriages while serving in the military. That used to be the GOP agenda, when did it become "unmarried couples, with children in foster homes and denying the military the best people to fight terrorism?" The military kicked out a bunch of gay translators needed to interrogate terrorist suspects so now there's a shortage. Boy I sure feel safer now, how about you?

Now that gay rights are secured in California, we want to get our taxes lowered, deal with immigration and all of those other things that only a GOP majority can accomplish. Having an anti-gay platform these days is like saying you oppose suffrage and support prohibition. There very well may be people out there who feel that way, but it's not going to change so why keep fighting a battle that's already lost? Makes you wonder who it is who's really the most obsessed about gay sex these days...us or CRA... We endorsed on issues not related to it, but it would seem that is the main criteria for CRA. ; )

yawn...

I will never be able to look at a Jack Russell or a Bogh the same way again LOL what a set up! To bad you blew that last line it could of been a good one, otherwise the best post of the day.

I don't really care what the log cabin club does, but I am concerned that Bogh appears to be a union stooge. Look for a ton of cop union, firefighter union and other union money to poor into the district in this last month.

Um... when did the GOP become anti-cop/anti-firefighter? Sounds more the a liberal democrat to me

Bogh - a union stooge? Is that why the unions are dropping money against him?

Russ, is that you??

"when did the GOP become anti-cop/anti-firefighter?"

When cops and firefighter stopped caring about public safety as much as they care about growing government.

The rank and file dont agree with the union thugs, but just like the teamsters, they have to join to get a job. The union then turns around and forces them to contribute part of their paychecks to their political fund and props up democrats and liberal Republicans all over the state.

If the cop and fire unions really care about public safety, ask yourself this:

Why don't they put the same effort into fighting the Governor's proposal to let out 22,000 prisoners and shorten parole form 3 years to 6 months as much as they fought the effort to move future employees to a 401k system? (like the majority of Americans have)

Now this is funny:

James Vaughn said:
As Director of California Log Cabin Republicans we want to be sure that you know we endorse Mike Spence heartily for President of CRA. We will leave it to you all to decide what our criteria is...

Like the Log Cabin group or hate them, this makes a pretty good point.

Don't hate. It violates your Christian ethics.

Has anybody seen the slushfund hit on Russ? Ouch, that's gotta hurt.

The Log Cabin guys probably hang out in airport bathrooms and see which candidate will violate the "Brown Act" with them. They're endorsement is based on the size of the "exit pole".