California GOP sees hope on the horizon

Indian Wells, California Republicans begin the 2010 campaign season with something many considered unthinkable just a few months ago - hope that they can win a major statewide race.

They realize the odds are still steep. Only 31 percent of California voters are registered Republicans and no Congressional or legislative district has a majority of GOP voters. And demographically, former state Republican leader and current political analyst Allan Hoffenblum said the GOP has become an "old white guy" party in a state that is rapidly diversifying.

Yet coming out of their three-day state convention that ended today, party activists say they are seeing signs the GOP is emerging from the shock of last November's national tail-kicking by the Democrats. Many see hope in a growing national frustration with federal bailouts and government expansion, and in declining approval ratings for President Obama.

"Last year it was a morgue here," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), who attended the convention to support former eBay CEO Meg Whitman's gubernatorial bid. "For the first time since (former GOP Gov.) Pete Wilson's 1994 campaign, I feel a sense of 'we' in the Republican Party."

The newfound sense of "we" showed in the absence of bickering over social issues like abortion that typically divide the party gatherings. Instead, California Republicans joined in extolling the promise of two deep-pocketed gubernatorial candidates - the billionaire Whitman and multimillionaire state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner - along with what's expected to be a similarly well-funded Senate candidacy of former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina against incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer.

Most of all, they hope to capitalize on what they say is a growing anti-government sentiment in California that will inspire voters to seek alternatives.

California Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth urged party members to reach out to supporters of the anti-tax, anti-government

"If I understand you correctly, your point is that if you can't get a 100% conservative, don't even bother. Lose and learn your lesson, because you'll be willing to vote for the 100% conservative next time around."

No, no, that's not what I said at all. Because first of all, there's no way to be 100%, because all Conservatives can't necessarily agree on what IS 100%. I'm an Internationalist in foreign affairs, and that's considered "liberal" by Paleos, but I don't consider it as such, and I consider their naivete on foreign policy by espousing isolationism is too close to the far-left policy of leaving us vulnerable to attack. No, what I look for are people better than 85% in the right direction.

Part of my argument is that even when we recruit people that agree to the bulk of those positions, they aren't necessarily skilled enough to be able to push them through (as several of those gubernatorial examples I cited), or fall to personal indiscretions (Mark Sanford), marring an otherwise excellent record. It's a balancing act finding excellent candidates who will do an equally excellent job. They don't exactly grow on trees, and sometimes the good ones often let us down. Worse than that is when you have some so-called Conservatives factionalize and choose candidates not based upon their political record, but based upon a shared religious sect or the most superficially idiotic thing, because they're physically attractive. By doing the latter, they'll often deliberately ignore their record, which might only be any where from mediocre to horrible (such as the Slick Willard disciples here, who refused to even look at his terrible, indeed, disastrous, record). I hope that cleared up the point I was trying to make there.

No, what I look for are people better than 85% in the right direction.

That's because you place a very high standard on politicians. Politicians are human beings, and as such are prone to mistakes just like the rest of us.

Of course, we are looking for good and decent people who have the best interests at heart for America. We seek quality, conservative politicians who will respect the constitution and keep their promises. I have high standards as well, but I don't go punishing a politician because he or she doesn't agree with me over 85% of time.

Hope my point is clear as well.

I think demanding high standards is a basic minimum requirement for the job. When you consider the awesome power they have, especially to make life or death decisions regarding the fate of our country, high standards MUST be expected. Too often I’ve seen a lowering of standards (or none at all) for people in office, and it makes me sick. I’d say better than 90% of the people in this country currently in office have absolutely no business serving, and they and their buddies make it such an environment to discourage good, honest, and ethical people from serving it’s despicable.

But, again, I don’t regard demanding high standards as a negative. Now, more than ever, we must expect this. And it must go hand in hand with a positive and unapologetic Conservative agenda.

I set that 85% as a minimum for starters because too many well-intentioned people go to DC and get sucked into the corruption and statism, and we watch as they get pulled hard to the left. The longer they’re there, the worse they get. It is exceptionally rare when you have people like Jesse Helms, who remained just about as Conservative in his 30 years as he did the day he arrived, and basically because he didn’t give a damn what the elites thought, while so many Republicans fall into the trap of wanting the elites and liberals and media types to like them. That’s why Jesse was one of the best Senators in the past 50 years.

Your statement in the prior post made it sound like you had a lesser bar set for our candidates. You didn’t make yourself clear in trying to distinguish between high standards and high expectations, although I don’t think there’s necessarily a huge difference. My expectations, however, go so far as merely expecting our candidate to keep their word and not lie to our face, with respect to policy, I expect a basically Conservative record, try to hold the line on taxes or cut them, try to hold the line or cut the size of government, and as a party leader, to leave their state party in as good a shape or better than when they found it. At least at the end of their tenure they can say they tried to do the best that they could.

With respect to Palin, I didn’t consider the situation with her daughter being a negative reflection on her (nevermind the media hypocrisy surrounding it all, the obsession with going on a gynecological expedition of a 17-year old while ignoring or downplaying the problems with the other candidates’ family members, the drunken speed freak son of Al Gore’s who could’ve gotten people killed, or Joe Biden’s drug-addled daughter, both of which would’ve been front page headlines were they Republicans). If anything, Palin’s handling of the crisis was expert. It’s one thing to avoid a crisis, but when you’re faced with one, it’s a test of leadership, and she passed with flying colors. The media was merely using it as an excuse to run her out of the race because they were, are, so terrified of her and what she stands for (and the fact she is one of those rare movement type-leaders).

Now, as I may have already mentioned, the problem we have with candidates goes far beyond NY or CA, we have to get through a gauntlet before we even reach the general that Dems don’t have to go through. In almost every state, there is a party establishment that tends to promote big government liberals and they don’t want candidates that favor Conservatism, and that is even a problem in my state, where these rich, connected establishment types curbstomp any candidate that threatens their deathgrip on the state party. For the most part, the richer they often are in the GOP the more liberal they tend to be. Most of the movement Conservative people are of far more modest means, and they have to mobilize and motivate people as opposed to writing a check in order to get visibility.

Worse, yet, here in Nashville, a lot of those rich Republican establishment types are simply in bed with the Democrats. That article I pointed out to you on the Philadelphia GOP was not too far afield from the situation here, except the Nashville GOP never tried to win, nor was ever the majority (unlike Philadelphia prior to the 1950s), except for a brief period during Reconstruction. The party doesn’t even put up candidates for Mayor here, we haven’t had a GOP Mayor since Grover Cleveland’s 1st term. The party is content to just aid Democrats here rather than fight for their own. We certainly get no help from them in even Council races, where mine and an adjacent district, both poor and relatively high-crime, have two Republicans (while all the rich areas have very left-wing Democrats).

My point is that you have to get past all of that crap in so many areas before you even reach the general to face off against a Democrat. Most Dems don’t have any similar situation, and their party is fine and dandy with far-left moonbats, that’s mainstream to them. But try to run responsible, government-shrinkers with solid Conservative values, and the GOP establishment tries to either run them out, threaten them, or discourage them from even running. It’s often no wonder why in CA where you have a corrupted GOP establishment that Conservatives don’t bother to run with the crap they have to put up with (and even if they do manage to get the nod, like Tom McClintock, they have the RINO debris trying to saw the legs out from under them from the primary clear through to election day — they don’t want Conservatives, they’re fine with liberal Democrats). And right there is why we often see such low-quality candidates that have no business running for office, the good buddies of the corrupted party establishment core, absolutely indistinguishable from the opposition.

**And with an aside about Duncan Hunter, who hails from CA, my point above as to why he wouldn’t even be allowed to get near a nomination for high office is perfectly made. But as I also stated, Hunter was a good man, but he isn’t a movement leader type, that’s why even if he didn’t have a monolithic establishment trying to halt him, he still was a second-tier candidate overall, and that was one reason he couldn’t break through in a Presidential field. Simply put, unless he was very high profile to start with, House members just aren’t given Presidential nominations. No Republican has since James Garfield, but Garfield was already a Senator-elect when he became President.

DJ, I never expected you to have read any of my posts during my almost 10 years tenure as a Freeper, over which I consistently have demanded high standards from our politicians. But you saying that I didn't make my post regarding high standards clear is a bit troublesome. It makes me believe that my conservation with you has fallen on deaf ears.

We seem to be going around in circles and going nowhere, so I'm going to conclude by repeating my reasoning, which is at the core of my posts:

I know you are overextending your opinion outside the scope of the issue at hand, and even though I have agreed with you, I made it clear that if you are going to win in liberal states you have to make sure you run conservatives who are electable. Period!

And one more thing:

Most of the movement Conservative people are of far more modest means, and they have to mobilize and motivate people as opposed to writing a check in order to get visibility.

Exactly! They have to mobilize and motivate people, that's exactly my point. If they don't get people to vote for them, that means that it isn't the party that fails them but rather it is the people who don't want them. We can't just go blaming the GOP for being a corrupt party that only wants to help liberal candidates, and then have candidates who can't get enough votes to win. Let's also point out that it is the people who ultimately vote. Tom McClintock is proof that he can be electable even in CA, despite a so-called “corrupt” GOP party. It means there were enough Californians voting for him.

If a conservative candidate can't inspire people to vote for him or her, if he or she can't generate the enthusiasm, confidence, and trust of the people, it's not fair or proper to blame the “corrupt” party. Case in point: Sarah Palin. She gets opposition from every corner, including the GOP. Lately, McCain has indicated he intends to reshape the GOP in his image. She is hated by the media and the Democrats, and late night comedians fill their coffers by mocking her. And even with all that opposition, she manages to shine. Why? Because she has something to say and she connects with people.

If Sarah were to run, I'm sure she'll be a formidable contender with or without the approval of the party, the media, the democrats, and their sympathizers. So in the end, it is the people who ultimately will decide. If a candidate doesn't have the support of the electorate, no party support or great amount of money would change that.

Well, I apologize if I mistook what you said. I have seen, however, more than a few FReepers find lowering the bar (and worse for some, removing it entirely) for the purposes of getting an “R” elected entirely acceptable. I’m a Conservative first, and if the GOP decides that electing liberals is its main cause, I’ll declare war on them just as much as I do the Democrats.

Of course you are correct that we most endeavor to nominate Conservatives that are electable. However, who some consider that to be sometimes differs.

Now, where I disagree is that WHY a person doesn’t get nominated or elected can differ. You’re right in that sometimes it is the fault of the candidate themself, but sometimes it is the establishment doing all they can to undermine them, sometimes the media, sometimes lack of money, or a stronger Dem opponent, etc. You have to look at the given race to see what went wrong, can’t necessarily apply a broad brushstroke or call it all a conspiracy... HOWEVER... I have witnessed enough contests, especially in the last 2 decades, to begin to see a pattern emerge in far too many states of a business-as-usual establishment try to halt and destroy Conservative reformers (even in IL back in 1972 where a non-Combiner liberal reformist Democrat, Dan Walker, managed to upset the annointed Combiner Democrat, then-Lt Gov. Paul Simon, in the primary and then the unpopular GOP/RINO incumbent Governor, Dick Ogilvie, who many thought would be the 1976 Presidential nominee, the establishment Dems, led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley (father of the current Mayor), waged war against Gov. Walker throughout his term, to the point that Walker lost renomination in ‘76, and it so damaged the Dems, they weren’t able to elect another Dem Governor for 26 years until Blagojevich).

I personally tend to align myself with outsider reformers, because too often once supposed “former” outsiders get in power, they often become the monster that they previously defeated. I’ve seen that far too many times, especially with our DC people.

Regarding your example of Palin, I’ll throw in another, that being Katherine Harris of FL. Some on FR consider her a lot like the 2000 version of Palin, and she attracted a diehard group of supporters and fans. But where the comparisons stopped were when you went past gender and party affiliation. For some reason, KH had a peculiar habit of rubbing a lot of people the wrong way (worse, those people happened to be the people that should be supporting her). She was viciously attacked by the media (just like Palin was), but unlike Palin, she only tended to exacerbate the media caricature of her by her eccentric behavior. She played the victim card to the hilt (to a degree, she was one, but where she went overboard was playing the card anytime or everytime she started making mistakes and doing things that made herself look worse). When I started telling some of her campaign workers and advisors (who posted on FR) and giving pointers on the criticisms and how to turn those around, I started getting viciously attacked (second only to the attacks on me by the Slick Willardbots).

I soon concluded her candidacy was wholly an unviable one, and there was simply no way she was going to win the general election and started aggressively and unapologetically speaking out and pointing out her massive negative points that would prevent her from winning, with her sycophants pointing out how she could, but based on information about her that was the public’s perception of her from a decade earlier, and not what it was then. I said we needed to defeat her in the primary, and again, more attacks claiming I stood with the establishment (of course, most people that see my posts know I am usually anti-establishment). My point here was to win a key race, because the Dem incumbent was highly unpopular, and as I tried to state rationally, you can’t beat someone with a challenger who has higher negatives. Of course, exactly as I predicted, she lost in a landslide (I estimated she would lose by anywhere from 20-40%).

It’s fine to be a booster of a candidate, so long as you try to remain realistic about their chances. If I thought Gov. Palin would be a disastrous choice as a Presidential candidate in ‘12, I’d be opposing her and looking for someone else. What’s astonishing is that I’ve rarely seen another example of a single candidate being almost the only possible choice who could win a race. I thought the same at least 2 or 3 years out regarding then-Gov. George Bush for 2000 (now McCain probably could’ve also won had he maintained momentum out of the spring that year, but I opposed him right out of the chute for the same reasons I’d cite for ‘08, and McCain actually was using Democrats flooding a GOP primary to obtain victory, as he audaciously did in Michigan, and specifically Detroit. Democrats choosing our nominee had to be stopped at all costs). It’s funny, despite my seeing Bush as the inevitable choice to face Gore, I wasn’t all that pleased with him, I was going to cast a protest vote for Alan Keyes, but I was never under a delusion Keyes could win the primary. Sometimes it’s nice to cast a vote for an underdog you merely agree with, especially if the outcome is already preordained.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.