That is an intellectually lazy conclusion. Easy to say - -not so easy to support with facts.
For that to be true, you would need to have liberal Republicans winning when they are the nominee and conservatives losing. That's not what is happening in California. In recent years Republicans have lost quite a few races, and in fact liberal Republicans have given up more formerly Republican seats than conservatives have. In 2000 we gave up four house seats only one was a conservative. The Senate nominee that year was a notoriius liberal Republican and he got his clock cleaned.
Both the Senate and Assembly minority leaders in California are prolife conservatives. That means more than half of the GOP members of those caucuses voted for them. Sorry, but your conclusions just aren't supported by the facts.
Part of the reason Republicans have lost high-profile races in recent years is because we have had nominees who weren't terribly exciting and didn't stand for much (like Riordan).
Bill Simon is the conservative candidate for governor. After he wins the nomination you will see activism in California that has been missing since the Reagan days. Not only can a conservative win, that's what it will take. Wait and see.
I wasn't in California during Gov. Reagan's days and only the last two of Pres. Reagan's years. I would like to see the Republican activism you are telling me is here. I sensed some increased conservative energy in 2000, not enough to make a difference; but a 'gathering' storm???