Skip to comments.Charles T. Munger Jr. puts more than money into California Republican politics
Posted on 09/16/2011 3:49:05 PM PDT by SmithL
Charles T. Munger Jr. isn't your run-of-the-mill Republican donor.
The wealthy Stanford physicist is gaining prominence in a state Republican Party now regularly in search of money needed to win in blue California. But Munger's involvement in the state GOP goes beyond writing checks.
His influence will be on display this weekend as California Republicans gather in Los Angeles for their fall convention and begin discussing a Munger-inspired platform that downplays traditional GOP positions on gun rights, abortion and same-sex marriage.
The bow tie-wearing Republican has spent recent months shepherding a behind-the-scenes effort to adopt a more moderate California Republican Party platform.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
And my response is in my tagline
Never trust a man in a bow tie.
We call those RINOs out in reallity land.
He should be fully repudiated. Moving left is the quickest way to kill the Republican Party. Munger knows that.
This is going nowhere.
Is this the same guy that’s Warren Buffet’s right hand man?
Fools and their money are soon parted. Don’t know for sure but I’m led to believe that most of the campaigns for state offices were run on the same principles or concepts.
Is CA a winner take all elector state ?
Based on the unlikely theory that the California GOP has some principles left to abandon.
And over here on this thread, here's a Reuters article stating:
Interesting. Did all these "only RINOs can WIN in blue states!" morons just sleep thru the special election in New York last week? Because I hate to break the news to them, but a staunch pro-life and pro-traditonal marriage Catholic Republican just WON a "safe Democrat" district in New York City (psst... that's one of them "progressive" regions of the country). And yes, election data showed the HUGE numbers he got among Catholics (71%) and Orthodox Jews (91%!) was partly motivated by "wedge" issues such as the Democrat candidate voting to legalize gay marriage in NY when most voters were against it.
If these dopes had their way, Bob Turner would have NEVER been the GOP nominee for Anthony Weiner's seat because they would have denounced him as "TOO CONSERVATIVE!" due to the fact he's to the right of Stalin. Instead they'd find another so-called "electable moderate" in the Meg Whitman mold.
You gotta love how the liberal media and their pals in the GOP establishment will just ignore any election results that disprove their talking points.
They were quick to blame Alan Keyes' "conservative values" as the reason he lost to Obama in a landslide (never mind the fact that he was an 11th hour replacement candidate from out of state). But four years later, when a nice, inclusive, totally gutless "centrist" Republican is nominated for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, and does even WORSE than Keyes (Steve Sauerberg won a whooping 3 out of 102 counties against Dick Durbin), they just pretend the election never happened. And when scumbag Blagojevich crushes "electable" RINO state treasurer Judy Barr Topinka in the Governor's race, pay NO attention to that, but when Bill Brady wins 99 out of 102 counties 4 years later and only loses by 0.5%, well gosh darn, he was just TOO CONSERVATIVE to carry the WHOLE state. And gosh, Mark Kirk keeps winning the 10th district cuz RINOs are soooo darn electable in the suburbs and he's "the best we can get", but then when unabashed pro-life and pro-gun Dan Rutherford is the biggest GOP voter on the 2010 ticket and outpolls ALL other Republicans in the 10th district, pay no attention to that! It means NOTHING!
Arnold's a great role model for how the GOP can win elections by being so "moderate" and "post-partisan", but pay no attention to Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina's vote totals. Bruce Herschensohn, Bill Simon, Tom McClintock, and Dick Mountjoy lost statewide races because they're all "too conservative" and scared away suburban moms with their "scary" social values, but pay no attention to the fact "electable" Matt Fong, Tom Campbell, Meg Whitman, and Bruce McPherson (who was an INCUMBENT!) did even worse. And how about those urban DEMOCRATS who are publicly pro-life, pro-gun, or pro-traditional marriage? Why would they RUN on these issues if it scares away voters so much? Why did 58 incumbent House Democrats tout their NRA endorsements in 2010 if it hurts their re-elections chances and turns off suburban moms? I don't recall anyone from the liberal media announcing "Dennis Cardoza risks alienating moderate voters with his support from the extremist NRA", as they claim everytime its a Republican candidate running as pro-life and/or pro-gun. Funny how none of these Dems ever lose re-election for their "scary" positions to uphold traditional social norms.
I guess for those who want to ignore reality and cherry-pick election results, they can buy Munger's argument that being Dem-lite makes the GOP more "electable"
U N E L E C T A B L E !
Obviously, a FAR-LEFT LIBERAL candidate like Beverly Perdue WILL NEVER WIN a state like North Carolina. We can accept liberals if they're running in a friendly BLUE STATE like Vermont, but the North Carolina Democrats PURISTS supporting Perdue need to face reality. This is a RED STATE. This state voted Republican in 8 out of the last 10 Presidential elections. This state elects people like Jesse Helms and Richard Burr. Unfortunately, a Sarah Palin-like DINO is about the BEST we're ever gonna get out of a state like this!! You may not like Democrats who are best friends with Dick Cheney, 100% pro-life, pro-gun, limited government, cut spending, and oppose illegal immigration, but you cannot deny that they are ELECTABLE in this state. A vote to nominate PERDUE in 2008 is a vote for Republican Pat McCrory. If she is the nominee, we will wash our hands of it. Get behind our DINO now or we'll accuse you all of being trolls from Free Republic...