POST SCRIPTS

Great points Jack!

Especially about reaching out to Hispanics and Asians. There is a great deal of common ground that Republicans have not exploited. Its not about pandering, its about finding ways to explain your core principles to a wide array of people.

I would alos like to point out, what you have explained to me before as well. That the so called "deregulation" bill was passed, shouldn't have had the word deregulation any where near its title. If anything it was a form of price fixing where by the government ham stringed one sector of the market while favoring another. This never works the way it is intended and you would expect republicans to know that.

My concern is that people will think I am just being hypercritical to hear myself talk. That's not it at all of course, this is about protecting what you believe in by trying to make course corrections to keep it off the rocks. Thats all. It's worth the risk too.

The issue on Indian gaming probably means the least to me and why it's a big issue with the CRP defies logic, at least in my thinking. We could go into a lot of pro's and con's on why we even have Indian gaming, but it's pointless. It's here and it's not going away and thats that.

At the national level our party was apparently in denial that the voters would notice their lack of performance coupled to their big spending. However, that proved not to be the case because in the general election of 2006 they voted us out and Nancy Pelosi in, as the new speaker. Now there's a big wake up call!

Jack you're certainly right about Republican leadership being in denial that we would notice how they were governing. But conservatives can't get away with blaming the loss entirely on leadership.

There are two things I would add to this discussion as food for thought.

1. The public is still uneducated and ill informed. They are ignorant about many of the factors that influence the record...for either party...and about the way things work. They are also still easily swayed, in either direction, by drive by "NEWS"...or, they would not have elected Pelosi, Reid and friends...curing a headache by cutting your throat is not a wise or prudent move.

2. The actual republican record is better than has been "reported". Republicans did cut and consolidate programs and they reduced spending in many areas in the process. If the record includes the extraordinary circumstances we faced, 911, hurricanes, the war, the recession, the need to establish ways to handle homeland security, etc., the republicans did an amazing job...but that story was not told and in fact was distorted and twisted without adequate rebuttal.

As I have stated before we are still dealing with a committed left in media and thousands of leftist organizations. These entities live and breathe for one purpose, to destroy republican policy, power and ideas. It is their religion and they are relentless. This is not meant as an excuse for our failures but as an acknowledgement of the oppositions power and strength. The trouble with republicans, and our lefty friends will laugh here, is that we are too nice, too easy going, too willing to share the credit, or not care about it at all. When it comes to political power our competition is always at war and always going for the throat. That means we must to learn to toot our own horn, tell our story...a trait that isn't natural to people who care more about making things work than taking credit for "saving" people or being crowned with power and glory and awarded prizes.

Every administration has failures. As republicans have known for a long time not all administrations are given the same treatment in the news. The public, in ignorance, swings in the breezes of the tabloid headlines that pass for reporting. We vote too often based on a narrow view peppered with sensationalized scandal and little else.

...why it's a big issue with the CRP defies logic,...

My guess. Republican leaders in California have very little power to set an agenda or further ideas. California is in DEEP DOO DOO financially. Spitting in the wind is tiring...they can't win the fight so they have reluctantly (I hope reluctantly) agreed to a fix for our finacial woes.

This means the CRP better get back to values and ethics that once put us in power and that the majority of voters still support.

Do you have any stats on this Jack...it sure seems that Califonia has turned left in the values and ethics department except for a few small pockets?

Jack,

It's easy to make armchair criticisms about the party. Almost as easy as it is for some guys to armchair quarterback their favorite football teams. Pretty much everyone thinks they could do it better, but most couldn't or they'd already be there doing it.

You mention the large percentage of hispanic voters. I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Should republicans give hispanic voters what they want in order to get elected? Republicans have taken a lot of hits nationally for being against illegal immigration, do you want them to go against their beliefs in order to gain votes?

Ron Paul supporters will always be disgruntled, and many of them wouldn't vote republican anyway.

Then there's the decline to states. The primary is a time for parties to choose the direction they will go in the general election. The primary lets republicans pick the person who best represents them and send that person into the ring against whoever the democrats pick for their party. Letting people who are not registered republican pick the republican candidate is a lot like letting the Houston Oilers pick the quarterback for the SF 49ers. I realize they could get a few more voters with this tactic, but what good is that if you suddenly have Ralph Nader as the republican candidate in the general election?

The Republican party in California has lost a lot of elections, it's true. But is this because the party is failing or because California's voters are just out of touch with reality? Do you really think that if a perfect conservative ran on American values and morals in San Francisco that the freak-shows there would elect him?

Personally, I'm glad the republican party is holding on to its values. I expect them to go down fighting, and I hope that they win.

Dane you said to me, "It's easy to make armchair criticisms about the party."

Well wait just a minute there Dane! Wow...armchair, ARMCHAIR, moi?

You do realize that I've been a Party activist for many, many years with more volunteer experience than most and at the state and county level. That dedication of my personal time goes way beyond just being on sidelines taking jabs. I'm in here Dane, fighting for the cause and I have been for years.

You asked, do I think I could do a better job?

Let me put it this way, Dane when we reach perfection you let me know ok? Because, until then I reserve the right to call em like I see em for our own good!

I try to acknowledge the good and yes, I do criticize bad, thats just me...sorry. It's the way I operate. I just can't be in denial while my Party is failing. I have to seek out the reasons why? Then find methods to fix it.

It is my opinion and the opinion of a few million others that the CRP and our legislators have drifted too far to the left and away from our core principles, principles that at one time set us far apart from the democratic party.

You said, "Personally, I'm glad the republican party is holding on to its values." You are welcome to your opinion, but the past performance you are so delighted with has led us to the brink of irrelevancy. I would like to see a little more than failure.

Please re-read my criticisms. See if each one is not valid.

You said, "I expect them to go down fighting..."

The Japanese have a word for that...Hari Kari. What good will that do?

Jack,

My apologies, I did not mean to offend, only to offer a counterpoint. Your previous descriptions of your activism seemed to suggest that you used to be involved with the party but that you aren't anymore. You are currently not running for party leadership, but instead are running for a state legislative position. So I assumed you had put a lot of the inner dealings of the party behind you. People who run for party leadership generally want to make changes and make a difference in the party. People who run for higher office tend to do so for self-serving reasons.

As to your points though. You make the claim, and some would agree with you, that the party is drifting to the left and that this is bad. However you also seem to be supporting opening up our primaries to decline to state voters, a tactic that has the result of shifting the party further to the left. Letting non-republicans vote in the republican primary is a sure-fire way to elect John McCain. In so viewing this, I believe this particular criticism of yours about the party was not valid and even self-contradictory.

A lot of your criticisms were about the relevance of the party, but you are very unclear as to how to achieve that relevance. Should the Republican party support campaign finance reform? The only reforms I've seen have damaged the ability of the party to participate in politics, and money still has the same influence it ever did. I also didn't know that campaign finance reform mattered much to voters. Whenever polled as to the top ten issues voters care about, they rarely, if ever, mention campaign finance reform.

In your prop 93 criticism, you seem to blame the party for the actions of the Governor and suggest that he would vote with the party if they were more relevant. This governor is a finger in the wind politician who has no personal moral belief system. He's a likable guy because he'll do anything to get people to like him. The party supported this governor in the past to become more relevant in California, but loyalty is hardly one of his qualities, and the party is now starting to regret trading their values for relevancy with this guy. Many look back and wish they had voted for McClintock now, but that would have been considered hari-kari at the time, would it not?

** On a side note, your own coverage of prop 93 early on seemd to be promoting it. This is understandable as a lot of people liked the idea of this proposition before they actually read it. But to now be so harsh of those supporting a change in term limits, it seems as if you have some other axe to grind here?

In this primary, the republican party has a chance to determine the face it will put forward. They will likely choose either the more conservative Romney, or the more moderate McCain. Popular wisdom seems to suggest that the party could boost its relevancy with McCain, and that Romney would be the hari-kari choice. I would argue that the party has lost relevancy by trading away its values, and that we would be better served with a conservative candidate. Perhaps if our party stood for something voters would come back to us.

Again, I did not mean to offend with my other statements. But I do view the party leadership as those who have chosen to fight it out and work in the trenches, while most critics, whether by armchair or blog, are just that: critics. I have some of the same feelings towards critics of the party that I have toward critics of our nation. It seems someone is always making the claim that the world hates us, that our ideals are outdated, that our country is no longer relevant. Sometimes I get defensive.

Thank you for your thoughts Dane. No offense taken either, but it was nice of you to be concerned. Thanks for your polite consideration.

I've read your post and you say many important and relevant things. I'm sorry if it appeared our early coverage on Prop 93 seemed supportive, I think we were just publishing both sides, because I've always been against it because of who it will benefit and why they were promoting it. However, I'm not entirely against it in terms of just building experience in one office for 12 years. There is something to be said for that part, who could say otherwise?

Well, rather than to rehash what has been said let me address a few things I think will help:

1. Allow declined to state a voter to have a republican vote. The democrats outnumber us and they allow declined to state voters to vote for them.

There is no evidence this going to move the party to the left, although it might, but we can't really assume it. But, we can assume that denying 20% of the potential votes out there an opportunity to vote republican won't help us win elections.

2. Lets stop the pork projects unilaterly if we have too! When conservatives in government engage in pork or earmark spending we violate our own ethical standards and we become more like big spending democrats. We should discourage pork spending on that basis alone, just as we should discourage legislators taking money from lobbyists and special interests looking for favors that don't serve the interests of the people. Unfortunately, you won't ever hear that stuff spoken of in a state convention or addressed in any bills in our state or fed. government.

3. Our basic conservative principles are for lower taxes to stimulate the economy, aid prosperity, encourage individual initiative and to ultimately let you decide how to best spend your money. To get there we need a smaller government that is less intrusive into our daily lives. The CRP and its membership in government have done the opposite; they have grown government and welfare safety nets. We need to reverse course.

4. Organizing conservatives to do anything productive is like herding cats. This is because we're all individuals; we're just very independent and opinionated people and we not given to joining anything. But, we must organize in order to accomplish benchmark goals in the pursuit of major reform. Where's the organization effort and where are these benchmarks? We need some and we need it now...that takes leadership and grassroots working together. How we accomplish this is such a large subject I will have to set it aside for a later time.

5. Individuals need to take more personal responsibility. This means listen to the news and be politically aware. We need to be better educated how government is supposed to work, as provided in our Constitution. And demand our representatives stay on course.

6. Campaign finance reform. We know money plays a big role in elections so I think we should (a) Encourage voluntary spending limits by providing modest incentives. For example we give a little extra ad space on the ballot and/or a give candidates some free air-time for commercials and/or we refund the filing fee or all of the above. There's probably other things we can come up with, but this is a start. (b) We halt candidates from being sponsored by an incumbent..this is dynasty building. (c) We stop incumbent to candidate, or candidate to candidate, money transfers. (d) We list the top 3 contributors on all campaign ads. (e) We stop campaign fundraising during certain times when the legislature is in session. (Passing laws and collecting campaign money are inconsistent with good ethical standards.) (f) Lobbyists funding or technical assistance must be fully acknowledged in every sponsored bill.

I would prefer if "decline to state" simply had to "decline to vote" in any primary!

Pick a side and then help that side choose a candidate.

If your not willing to pick a party, then you dont get to vote in that parties primary, period.

That essentially eliminates any attempt to influence a parties choice away from the base for other than honorable purposes. Unless of course they want to go through the trouble of reregistering several times before an election.

I would prefer if "decline to state" simply had to "decline to vote" in any primary!

Well, uh, I suppose that is also another option. Would there be a "declined to state" candidate?