Posted on 01/26/2006 4:03:00 PM PST by NormsRevenge
For years, California political reporters have written stories around the state Republican Party convention centered on one basic theme, the party's impressive ability to consistently consume their young. Whether it's burning Pete Wilson in effigy, as activists did outside the 1991 state party convention, or forcing showdowns on divisive social issues, conservative activists have controlled the party leadership and dominated pre- and post-convention headlines for as long as most Californians can remember.
So it comes as no surprise that as the party is set to gather in San Jose next month, the same group of conservatives is making noise again. In a meeting in Palm Springs earlier this month, a group of activists vowed to force a floor fight over the governor's chief of staff, Susan Kennedy. They are preparing to push a resolution calling on the governor to fire Kennedy or risk losing the party's endorsement. The feud could have a financial impact, too, on the governor's and party's ability to raise campaign cash.
Is this really the "burgeoning insurgency" that the Washington Times reported this week, or a desperate attempt to remain relevant and retain influence in a state party that decreasingly reflects conservative ideals?
"It depends how you define influence," says GOP strategist Dan Schnur, who as an aide to Wilson in 1991 saw the conservatives' wrath first hand. "The success of any political party is its success to reach beyond its base. But that party's strength does come from its base."
The more the conservatives voice their displeasure, it seems, the more Schwarzenegger's political recovery is under way. A new Public Policy Institute of California poll shows that his approval ratings among likely voters has jumped seven points since October. According to the poll, 45 percent of likely voters approve of the job the governor is doing, while 48 percent disapprove. (Those numbers were 38-57 in October.)
But even within the confines of the party, there are signs the clout of conservatives is waning.
While conservatives used to control the party apparatus, moderates are now at the helm. Duf Sundheim, who is considered a moderate, was recently reelected to a second two-year term as party chairman. The only other statewide Republican official other than Schwarzenegger is Bruce McPherson, a pro-choice moderate.
When Gov. Schwarzenegger embraced a traditional Republican agenda in 2005, he was rebuked at the polls. Now, the party standard bearer is visibly moving to the left on key issues like the minimum wage, and has proposed an ambitious $68 billion bond program that has rankled some fiscal conservatives. He is pro-choice, and supportive of gay rights (though not gay marriage).
GOP activist Steve Frank says he is dismayed at the direction both the governor, and the party, are headed. "The Republican Party has to face a decision," he says. "Do we want power or do we want principals?"
Meanwhile, conservative activists have suffered some setbacks. Two recent ballot initiatives pushed by conservative factions of the party failed to qualify for the ballot. One measure promoted by Assemblyman Ray Haynes would have created a new state border patrol. Another would have repealed California's domestic partnership law.
But the governor has tried to reach out to skeptical conservatives. While he has continued to stand by his chief of staff, he has tended to the care and feeding of party activists. Soon after the Kennedy appointment was made, the governor made a personal call to activist and blogger Jon Fleischman and met with party leaders to reassure them that Kennedy would be a loyal chief of staff.
More importantly, say Republican officials, the governor has taken early action to explain his ambitious policy proposals. The governor has been touring the state explaining his massive, $68 billion infrastructure plan. And the administration has started to send surrogates to local Republican activists to help explain, and address concerns about his plan.
Administration sources say an effort to court local activists will begin next week with the governor himself, as well as surrogates, courting GOP volunteers and local leaders. Last week, Cabinet Secretary Fred Aguiar met with the Los Angeles County Republican Party to help explain the governor's bond package. "A lot of people listened," said one party official. "Some didn't necessarily agree, but I think those things are helpful."
Schnur says Republicans have every right to question the governor's policy choices, but that too much has been made of the Kennedy hire. In a post on Fleischman's blog this weekend, Schnur jokingly suggested Schwarzenegger divorce his Democratic wife, Maria Shriver, and replace her with Jenna Bush. The point, says Schnur, is that the governor should ultimately be judged on policy, not personnel.
"If Schwarzenegger has adopted a new governing agenda, it's entirely reasonable for conservatives to question that approach. But I haven't yet heard a good explanation of where they go with it. If Schwarzenegger doesn't fire Susan Kennedy, what next? Do you run a primary candidate? Stay home in November?"
Frank downplays the likelihood of a primary challenge from the right, but says the governor needs to do something to energize his base. That may be tough, since a large minority--perhaps as much as 40 percent--didn't even vote for Schwarzenegger during the recall.
"You're heading into November in a base that's not energized,' he said. "Why should we give our time to somebody who doesn't share our beliefs?"
One answer may be that Schwarzenegger and the activists need each other.
With Proposition 34 fundraising limits in effect for the first time in a gubernatorial campaign, Schwarzenegger needs to maintain the party's endorsement to continue funneling money for his reelection effort through the state party.
In a story in Sunday's Sacramento Bee, Schwarzenegger's chief fundraiser, Marty Wilson, said "the party is going to be very important to us in terms of helping to fund the campaign."
Schwarzenegger, in turn, represents by far the party's best fundraiser. Sources say since Schwarzenegger was elected, the state party's fundraising has soared even as national GOP fundraising has faltered.
It raises the old question once more regarding California. Can real conservatives ever regain control there, or is a mushy middle centrist running things the best they can realistically hope for?
The defeat of the Governor's propositions last year tends to make me think the latter is more likely.
Certainly future demographics don't favor the GOP or conservatives.
Bump for Petty Paleos.
Seems a bit of circular logic and ignores a clarion moment introduced into evidence by the author himself earlier in the article: 40 percent (ostensibly registered Republicans)--didn't even vote for Schwarzenegger during the recall.
Oh contre.
Culturally, Hispanics are conservative. Hence the rush for Democrats to addict them to the public largess to ensure their loyalty and Rove's rush to embrace them with the promise of freedom to compete legally for a share of the American dream.
Conservatives in California are shunning the Governator because he is NOT conservative. Most of us did not vote for him anyway.
Ironic that this excerpt, on of the few lucid moments of in an otherwise partisan article, was selected as a tool to pummel traditionalists.
Prop 74 through Prop 77 were indeed a traditional Republican agenda. All formulated and tried by Wilson in the past dozen years. All failed because they lacked the same key ingredient missing in their progenitor. A glaring absence of principle.
Absolutely. The traditional Republican agenda renovated by the Wilsonegger gang in 2005 was just as effective at memorizing the whole electorate as it had been between 1992 and 1998.
The sad thing..
It hasn't slowed his penchant for spending one iota, not so surprising to' as none of the initiatives were likely to have either.
Yes, hispanics are three to four times more likely to vote conservative than the overall black population, but future California demographics don't favor conservatives until such time as hispanics begin to solidly favor the GOP.
The argument is flawed on two fronts. 1) It presumes a connection between conservatism and the CAGOP and 2) presumes that Hispanics can only implement conservative principles through partisan activities.
Oh well. the prior argument was at least correct on one front:
Certainly future demographics don't favor the GOP
Look for Democrats from areas with substantial Hispanic demographics to become far more conservative after the Wilsonegger gang bankrupts the state and drives out the top 5% of its productive class.
Obviously you have a beef with the GOP, but putting your hopes in California Democrats to move the state to the right is pretty funny, at least to me.
Obviously, but the implication, apparently drawn from the dark recesses of a fertile, partisan mind, that conservatives would support Utopian socialists because a traditionally conservative party is being subjected to a temporary condition of forced prostitution is quite novel.
Oh no, you've got me wrong. There are plenty of conservatives like you who won't support any GOP candidate who isn't in lockstep with your views, and I realize that.
Hell, you'd prefer no dessert than to vote for half of one. It's the principle that matters, not the actual ramifications of what you allow to happen.
You just hold out until your perfect slate of candidates appears. I'm sure that will magically happen. And then you will magically win.
Bingo. That's why we're called conservatives rather than Republicans or Democrats.
It's the principle that matters,
We have another winner!
You just hold out until your perfect slate of candidates appears and then you will magically win.
A small but forgivable error in implications. I don't hold out for anything. I call it as I see it. Lack of principle. Lack of financial support. Agree with me, in principle, and enjoy a little of my wealth. Act on the professed principles and enjoy an even greater share. Get discovered in the role of a charlatan, go pound sand.
It's a simple principle that's effective. It does not factor in political victory or defeat for I only have one vote. The money was discretionary and if it's gone, it's gone. But, if victory is supported, there's a virtually unlimited potential for return from the now obligated beggar. A 10% chance to financially succeed is better than the market and a lot more entertaining,
You're hardly alone here, but you're part of the politically unappeasables.
You're a conservative but you're doing virtually nothing to help the conservative movement because very few people meet your demands.
It makes you politically irrelevant because you'd prefer it that way. We could use your help, but it's unlikely we'll ever get it.
Rather than reforming the GOP from within, you'd rather mount some futile challenge from the outside. You'll never succeed that way, yet you'll go to your grave thinking that was a smart strategy.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! They dare not let one little inch of bare principle show in their feverish dance to win financing and other support, let alone some righteous enthusiasm in amounts worth coming off the couch to vote for! Right? They're too afraid the voting moderates, independents and liberals would see that as letting their knuckles drag the ground.
Concessions to Conservatives, especially righteous Conservatives works in the nation with it's larger geography of Red States, but not in CA with it's vast majority of Red Counties, right???
RE: "All failed because they lacked the same key ingredient missing in their progenitor. A glaring absence of principle."
...Like Prop 10 did? It would appear to me that 'a glaring lack of principle' is not a 'fatal flaw' for any California proposition. ...or am I missing something?
Yeah, You're right, it is time to just quit, in California at least, trying to reform the party from within , that is,, time to just let it implode of its own accord.
conservatism will never sell here, in fact, a lot of what we see today isn't really conservatism either anyway, but it sure feels good pretending it is for some here.
the slow drift of the nation to the left continues, what were all of us silly conservatives in California thinking anyway, trying to start the flames of a new movement to lead the nation out of the morass it is sinking into, oh well.
maybe I can take up blogging, no use wasting my time here at FR anymore. Thanks, finally a reason to just moveon. ;-)
You completely misread my point. You have to reform the party from within rather than abandoning it.
That doesn't mean voting only for candidates who represent all of your positions. Those candidates probably can't win a statewide election.
In politics, incremental change is the most effective. California didn't become a liberal state overnight. It won't become a conservative one again overnight, either.
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.