21st Century Republicans support a Democrat against Tony Strickland
Posted by: Craig DeLuz | 08/01/2008 12:04 PM
As you may recall, back during the California Republican Party Spring convention, a group of liberal Republicans known as the "21st Century Republicans" came together to remove the more conservative planks of the GOP platform. Needless to say, they were summarily trounced.
Well, now their true colors are starting to show as some of them, led by Bob Larken, the former president of the California Congress of Republicans have started a group called "Moderate Republicans for Hannah-Beth Jackson". In other words, they are working to support a Democrat in one of the few competitive seats in the State Senate.
Amongst their ranks is a whose who amongst recipients of Butt Kickings by Ventura County conservatives:
Bob Larkin :ran unsuccessfully against McClintock for Assembly in 1996
Judy Mikels: Former Supervisor who was defeated by McClintock in the 2000 primary for state Senate
Cathie Wright: Former State Senator who has openly feuded with McClintock for years;
Jere Robings: Former executive director of the Ventura County Taxpayers Association who lost to Strickland in a 1998 primary.
On their website they state:
Hannah-Beth Jackson is someone we can trust. She listens to our concerns and wants to end the extreme partisan gridlock that has paralyzed our government. She has a proven track record and worked her entire life to make California a better place to live and work.
One only need look at her record in the legislature to know that the only way Hannah-Beth Jackson plans to end the "partisan gridlock" is by helping the Democrats take over total control of the legislature by getting a veto proof 2/3 majority in both houses of the legislature. And leave it to our liberal Republican friends to help make that happen.
But think, those undocumented students who benefit now will become future tax-payers that can pay back to the...
That just makes me want to puke! Why, for God's sake, would this group want the Democrats to have 2/3 majority?
It goes against the core principles of being a Republican. I guess these 21st Century people want the state to
become even more liberal than it already is. All these Democrats can do in Sacramento is continue to tax us to
death (CA is already in the top states with the highest taxes!) pass nanny and anti-family legislation. If it
weren't for some of the Republicans in Sacramento we'd already have a full-of-tax-and-fees budget; I can't afford
any more taxes. Someone please send these people new voter registration cards because they aren't even Republicans.
If any of these folks are on central committees, I hope their county Republican Party strips them of their seats.
And if any of them are delegates, they need to have that stripped as well! The primary is over ... Republicans are
supposed to support REPUBLICAN candidates. Thanks Craig, for flushing these RINOs out so people can see who they
really are. GO STRICKLAND!
These Republicans basically killed their future influence on the party.
Even though former supervisor Mikels was pissed that the Stricklands supported a Democrat to oust her, there are better ways to retaliate than to endorse a Democrat.
And if they only waited they could of ran for Audra's seat.
Silly silly silly.
Has it ocurred to anyone that some people in the Repulican party are not happy with the Republican Party?
Has it occurred to anyone that the reason we are facing such a tough election cycle is because Republicans have been leaving the party?
If you don't believe me, ask Craig how his slate for Central Committee did in the last election. I heard he even had radio!
"My Party",
The reason people are leaving the GOP is because of Republicans (like you) who support liberal Democratic policies. I will at least give this group credit for cutting out the middleman. The have chosen simply show their true colors and support the liberal Democrat herself.
And by the way, we did quite well! 17 of 29 candidates won seats on the central committee. This was in spite of some local electeds supporting a slate of candidates with thousands of dollars for slates, mail and newspaper ads.
Really!
Do you have any evidence that points to people leaving the party because we are too liberal? Because it seems to me, that our current crop of Republican legislators (absent the gov) are pretty conservative.
Actually, besides the targeted seats (Denham, Garcia, Horton, Houston), name off some of your so called "liberal" republicans.
Oh ya, did you get elected to the Central Committee? I know you were on the ballot.
I don’t know that it would be completely fair to lump Republicans into liberal/conservative categories; primarily because every one that I called a liberal would protest the categorization. But it is fair to point out the very visible and liberal policies that were supported by some Republicans:
1. A Republican President and a Republican controlled Congress oversaw a massive expansion in federal spending.
2. A Republican President and a Republican controlled Congress allowed the number of pork barrel earmarks to grow out of control.
3. A Republican President and some Republican members of Congress advocated for amnesty for illegal immigrants.
4. A Republican Governor allowed spending to grow out of control in California
5. A Republican Governor and a Republican State Senator pushed for increasing the minimum wage.
6. A Republican Governor promoted and signed a global warming boondoggle that will cost Californian’s billions of dollars and as of this date is unenforceable.
7. A Republican Governor has appointed more non-Republicans to the bench that Republicans.
I could go on and on. And these are only the fiscal issues. But I think you can agree that these lapses of judgment by Republicans worked in direct opposition to GOP values and hurt us in the eyes of core Republican Voters.
Craig: Really? And here I thought that people were leaving the GOP
because of its continually narrowing appeal to voters. But seriously, keep sticking to your dogmatic mis-interpretation of Reagan conservatism, keep up the ostracizing of RINO's, moderates, and anyone who doesn't fit your narrow description of what it means to be a "real" Republican, and keep moving the Party to the right. One day it's bound to work, right? In the meantime, get ready for more splinter groups consisting of influentials, donors, and voters that have been systematically excluded from the CRP...and continued electoral defeat outside of the areas that Democrats gerrymandered to contain Republican influence.
Quick question though: If the CRP is going to continue cutting out
people whose "true colors" aren't what you think they should be,
having the effect of moving the Party further to the right, then who will be left for the Party to appeal to?
D. Morton:
Did you even read my last comment? When did I advocate throwing anyone out of the party? I simply pointed out that Republican elected officials hurt our party’s image when they implement policy that is inconsistent with GOP principles.
People see Republicans increasing government spending (i.e. earmarks), implementing costly government programs (i.e. AB 32, the Global warming initiative), pushing tax increases (i.e. the one cent sales tax, the health care tax & home owners insurance tax), hurting California's business climate (i.e. increasing minimum wage) and promoting amnesty for illegal immigrants.
These are not hard radical right wing principles! Smaller Government, lower taxes, free enterprise and national security? These are core GOP issues on which some in our party have gone south. And Republican voters have noticed.
And yes, there are those of us who prefer to support Republican Candidates who support protecting innocent life, traditional marriage, along with other traditional values. But that isn't even what I am talking about here.
Can you be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and still be a Republican? Yes... Maybe... But how can you can you be fiscally liberal and socially liberal and still call yourself a Republican?
You call me dogmatic for demanding that we have some standard by which to measure Republican candidates. But if we are not a party of common principles and values, what are we?
If Maxine Waters became a Republican and still promoted the same policies, would you support her? How about Ted Kennedy or Barak Obama? If not, why not?
What is it that makes us different from them? Is it simply the "R" after our names? Definitely not! It is the values we share. And while we may disagree on some, we should not jettison those values; especially when a significant majority of us in the GOP do agree on them.
I am not interested in throwing you out of the party because you are not as conservative as I am. I am simply tired of you trying to lower the bar so that you can look more Republican.
Today it's marriage and abortion. And when that doesn't attrack voters, we will move away from smaller government and lower taxes... Oops... Too late!
Actually, my ability to comprehend your words is far greater than you give me credit for. What I want to know is who you think you are to be dictating a "standard by which to measure Republican candidates" and "common principles and values" to Republican candidates and voters.
The Republican Party is the sum of its membership. The problem with some people within the party is that they have forgotten this principle and consider themselves to be in a position to dictate the definition of the party to Republican voters. The results of such an attitude are already apparent in the CRP's ineptitude...and Romney's butt-kicking in California.
Who am I? I am a voter and a member of the Republican Party! That is who I am! And like you, I have a right to advocate for the values that are important to me.
How dare you attempt to admonish me for doing what is my constitutional right and my civic duty.
And as far as your "ability to comprehend" my words: I was trying to cut you some slack.
Based on what you wrote, one could summize that you either did not fully review my comments or that you see nothing wrong with Republicans who support higher taxes, bigger government and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Now that you have clarified that the former is not the case, we can naturally assume that the later applies.
I'm not admonishing you for exercising your "constitutional right and my civic duty"; I support you having every right to be vocally in error. I'm merely exercising the same right for pointing out that viewpoints such as yours regarding how the Republican Party should be run are the problem, not the solution, to the Republican Party's ineptitude in California.
Mr. De Luz
You make the comment regarding whether or not the republican part should support ideolgical liberals such as (in extreme case) Waters, Kennedy and Obama.
But lets take a less extreme more practical example, Arnold Schwartznegger. A republicans who don't fit your definition of a true conservative. With the worldwide popular appeal of Arnold, and him being the highest elected republican official. The party should have handed him the reigns right then and there when he took office.
If it was his party he would campaigned for republican candidates across the state, and told people these people help me with my vision for more employment and better jobs. Imagine the true potiential of money he could bring in for the CRP as well as the RNC. Imagine a democrat assembly kept in check. Imagine moderate democrats listening to republican viewpoints. When he would leave the govenors mansion, (possibly to run against Boxer) he would have a hand picked successor. Possibly Tom McClintock and more republicans in office state and citywide. Ideologically the state would have moved in the right direction landing in the center. Better than where the state sits now. The party may be moderate but the party as a whole would be stronger, and in a much btter position to push a conservative agenda than it is now. All this could have been yours had this party been motivated by pragmatism, rather than ideo...whatever motivates it now. Instead Arnold broke up with the CRP and listens to Maria. When you risk all or nothing with a weak position, you often get nothing.
So yes, The national impact of Ted Kennedy switching parties is incomprehensible. Obama and Waters would have the real clout to bring blacks into the party. Liberal republicans are more adept at getting liberals to vote for republicans. Hence they and moderates are assets to the party.
But RINO, you missed the point. We shouldn't be in the party in the first place, we are not true conservatives! The party leaders would rather be in a permanent minority than listen to a squish like me!
BTW, are there any other bloggers on this site besides Craig? I would figure you could get at least one other person to post once in a while.
My Party
Speaking as a true conservative. You are right. We shouldn't be in this party. Unfortunatly there isnt a viable alternative at present. (Voting liberal Dem is out of the question. I don't see the blu dogs taking over any time soon.) I like being a party pooper. The more people screaming "you suck" and start leaving. May have results. Hopefully they will awake realizing that their next CRP convention will be held in a phone booth, and the Peace and Freedom party has more membership.
BTW "My Party" nice Christine Todd Whitman reference for your moniker. I thought about using it but I'm a guy. I'm in SD, you?