People fail to understand the mechanics about the political system in the state of California where political campaigns are won and lost in a jungle primary called the Top 2 system. Democrats were shut out in 2012 in Congressional District 31 and Republicans were shut out of the 2016 US Senate race. Yes, it is nice that people want to participate in the political process, but the more people entering in a race such as for California Governor then Republicans will risk a race between two Democratic Party candidates.
I recognize that 11 months prior to the primary people want to start their exploratory committees and I can understand that. However, we had around 13 candidates running for US Senate which diluted the vote share in 2016. We must have the discipline to cut it down to 2 or 3. People need to decide by November if they have the feasibility to seriously contend for a statewide race.
There are also numerous state legislative, statewide and even Board of Equalization races one can consider running for as well. For example, Assembly District 52 had no Republican running for the race and we had to endure a 2 Democratic Party candidate campaign. I know people want the bully pulpit of running for major office, but there are other ways one can get the attention desired to get their issues out in the open as a state legislative or congressional candidate.
The problem is Republicans undervote instead of voting for Loretta Sanchez in 2016. I do recognize that Republicans want a choice, not an echo however we have to fully understand the mechanics of the Top 2 primary system. The factions in the California Republican Party need to become more united than the Democratic Party in our state and figure out how to fairly divvy up the statewide slate so we can work together instead of working against each other. It would be tragic if we end up in a condition like the Hawaiian Republican Party where Charles Munger Jr. would be a king of a crumbling castle.
I sent this email awhile back (May 31) to the general email box, but this was not forwarded to the chairman or the political director.
I know marginal races are not logical for the party to give 100 or even 500 dollar checks to, but perhaps after a candidate is endorsed the CRP could provide an email attachment of voter data for the primary if they are the endorsed Republican candidate (or if unopposed endorsed by at least 1 county party). The voter data would be something valuable and needed for a campaign and be just as good as a 100 dollar plus contribution. Then we could provide an attachment of updated data in August and October for the campaigns if they make it to the general election.
I understand with your presentations to local groups and the state party delegates that we can only fund races that have the best impact with our money such as the Clint Oliver special election, but small efforts to help our candidates would be a big morale booster.
Even if this cant be done in 2016, it could be considered in 2018.
This is one idea that would seriously would result in me paying for general member fees in addition to my delegate fees.
I know political parties can not exist on an empty gas tank. They need money to fuel a vision for our state and counties. Even though I have donated 290 dollars for dues and convention fees to the California Republican Party, I am tapped out for the year. Not all donors are wealthy as Charles Munger Jr or have connections to other donors such as our incumbent Republican legislators.
I have been called for the last three times and told the guy no. I said I have been tapped out after going to the convention in September and my fun money dried out. If I am able to donate further, I would either give it to my county party or an ideological group in the party such as the California Republican Liberty Caucus or the California Log Cabin Republicans.
I thought the platform committee experience would be ran fair and it would have been significant and that is why I invested money to attend the Anaheim convention, but after realizing how the process was ran, I wish I just bought Dodgers playoff tickets instead. Compared to other delegates, I attended when half the delegates decided not to show up to the platform committee. Perhaps my 95 dollars would of gone better if it was not given to the convention, but for the state or federal political account.
I know from what Chairman Jim Brulte has said in the past that we should not expect the state party to pay for mailers for marginal races, but we should at least give the candidates the tools to be better spokespeople for the cause. Make Trailblazers more accessible to the Republican Party activist who wants to go to the next level as a county, state or federal candidate. Offer voter data files to the nominees who decide to run in Democratic Party dominated districts. If the state party does stuff like this, then candidates and former nominees would be more thankful for the effort provided and may top up their dues 50, 100 or even 250 bucks beyond the minimum expected.
I think we should give draft platforms in the California Republican Party a chance to be read instead of railroading a preferred draft platform. The chair of the committee should be able to choose 3 of their favorite draft platforms maybe with consultation with the CRP board of directors and then all 3 of them are given 5 minutes to be discussed why each one should be approved or opposed.
I also think that amendments on the floor during the convention should be able to be selected by electronic vote on either mobile phones or wi-fi devices. Instead of people racing to the microphone to select an amendment we would have a quick electronic vote. 90 second vote to use the device and people would be selecting the amendment that would have higher priority. For example Crime and Punishment, Senator Nielsen was first at the microphone, but Matt Heath’s competing amendment lost because the outcome was already fixed. If people used their devices and said we want to hear Marty Wilson’s amendment over Heath’s 61 to 39 percent, I think that would make people feel better that we are not purposely overlooking amendments or things are just basically predetermined.
The leadership in the state party does pride themselves in being innovative, we could hopefully trial using electronic voting during floor sessions as well too in the future. Our previous associate representative in 2013 Aaron Gin is a technologist, we should maybe come up with ways to use technology better to run certain meetings better that have higher numbers.
The California Republican Party has their twice yearly event and it will be at the Anaheim Marriot on September 18-20th. I will be a delegate again. I am making sure I utilize my membership with the state party to the fullest.
Since I live nearby, I felt like I did not need to invest the extra 140 dollars for a Friday night room and will likely commute for a short visit on the 18th. These conventions can be so expensive. I went to the Sacramento convention and stayed at a hostel and it was not as fun.
I decided to splurge and get a room for one in Anaheim for Saturday night. Luckily my nominally paid job entitles me to a corporate discount at one of the hotels nearby. 113 a night beats the 129 at the main hotel.
Saturday is going to be the main event where the regional vice chair will likely have a contested race for the Inland Counties of our state and a potentially long platform committee hearing. It all depends on what potential amendments are going to be proposed to the platform committee members where 12% of the delegates are members of this committee.
I am hoping to provide a voice of reason in the platform committee. I hope not to be too liberal nor far right in my ideas and visions for the party. I want a platform that is honorable and results in less blowback for the party.
It is sad that my only vacations are the California Republican Party conventions. However these events are good for networking and for us to meet fellow like minded activists across the state.
I was hoping there would be unintentional cross marketing like what happened at the previous convention in 2013 where Gay Days shared the city with the Republicans, but they decided to run their event two weeks later.
I was curious what was in the recent California Republican Party platforms from 1995, 2000 and 2004. I know the 2011 platform was based on the 2008 platform, but oddly enough our platform is based on a 16 year old document. I think its better to know what is in our past platforms to make a better informed vote at the convention in Anaheim as a delegate.
This was a straightforward platform that was very lengthy with over thirty pages. It has some stuff that Republicans would squirm today such as advocacy for high speed rail. It regurgitated stuff that should of stayed in the federal platform which led to the increased length.
On LGBT issues, they express the position that non-straight people do not belong in the military and the preference for heterosexual relationships as the ideal for society.
There is some interesting language in the 1995 platform that could be helpful in a 2015 platform that could help us express our disapproval for SB 277.
Recognizing the family is the foundation of our society; that parents, as the leaders of the family, should be free from excessive and undue interference and intrusion from the state into matters relating to the family; and that parents are the people most capable of making decisions for and about their children; the Republican Party of California opposes:
* any effort that would weaken parents freedom of decision and freedom of choice and
* any abridgement of parental rights by the state.
I tried to write an amendment to the platform during the drafting committee on this subject recently, and they thought it was a pro-abortion amendment even though Planned Parenthood did spend big money against me last year.
The language I wrote stated this:
We support parental rights and individual choice in health care decisions. Only you and your doctor should be the arbiters of all medical decisions; not government healthcare mandates.
I vetted this with three other people who are not big fans of abortion and we did not see the reasons for opposition until the week of the drafting committee in August 2015.
Continue reading The History of the California Republican Party Platform
It seems Congressman Issa violated California Republican Party bylaws. This does risk his membership in the state party, the Orange, Riverside and San Diego county parties. However if anyone else advocated for the election of Obama or even Gary Johnson would likely get the boot faster than an Iraqi throwing shoes at President Bush.
Congressman Issa recently endorsed Howard Berman in the Congressional District 30 race on April 4th.
“I don’t tell people to vote for Democrats,” Rep. Darrell Issa of Vista told those attending the event Sunday, where Issa and Berman were being honored. “If there were a good Republican in the race, I wouldn’t tell you to vote for Howard, probably.
“But the fact is, Howard is in the race of his lifetime, and I want him back.”
Here are the bylaws from the state party.
A majority of the Committee or the Executive Committee may remove, censure or reprove any regular or appointive delegate who, during his term as a delegate , affiliates with or registers as a member of a party other than the Republican Party, publicly advocates that the voters should not vote for the nominee of the Party for any office, or who gives support to or avows a preference for any publicly announced candidate of a party other than the Republican Party or for a candidate for partisan office who is opposed to a candidate nominated by the Republican Party, or who fails to pay dues in accordance with section 2.01.09 or who pays any obligation to the Committee with a check drawn on a closed account or returned for non-sufficient funds (“bad check”). Section 2.01.06
I could understand Republicans endorsing Democrats when there are no Republicans running in a district such as Congressional District 35. But Congressional District 30 has 3 Republicans running. It will likely be the Berman versus Sherman show in November, Issa should of at least waited for the sacrificial lamb Republicans to be eliminated in the June election.
The rules committee of the California Republican Party needs to modify their bylaws to state that neutrality or support of their favorite Republican in a contested election is required, but if no Republicans survive a Top 2 then you are free to endorse your favorite Democratic Party politician on the day after the Top 2 primary. I know incumbent elected officials of our party want to work with the better of the two Democratic Party officials, but there is a time and place for this.
I did contact the CRP but messages were not replied with a response.
Here is a letter I sent back to the party from their 2012 fundraising solicitation.
I am sorry to say that this envelope will be delivered with NO FUNDS at this time.
I would like to complain that your office failed to communicate back to me about maybe running in a Democratic Party dominated area so we could have a race challenged. I called your front desk and they sent me to the communications guy instead of your political director and never got a reply back.
Then I asked your convention organizer about how does the party select its venues. I was curious to see if my home town could be considered for the Fall 2013 convention, but I got no answer. But I know you are busy planning the convention. But at least your representative could of said we are busy, but we will talk to you later.
Until then have a good day.
And at least this envelope will be used to give the postal service some much needed revenue since your front desk consumed my mobile phone minutes with no answers. If your staff had better customer service maybe it would lead to me buying an associate membership.
Losing the redistricting lawsuit in the California State Supreme Court was a good thing for the California Republican Party. California Republican Party sued to throw out the maps for the State Senate because they were fearful of losing their 1/3rds veto power. However the 1/3rds veto power prevented the party from becoming a majority party. Republicans need to adapt to a different California than when they were able to get Ronald Reagan and George H.W Bush elected in 1980 thru 1988. California is different than the era a generation ago and the leaders of the California Republican Party need to recognize this fact and start to remove their heads from the sand to enter the land of reality. It has been 42 years since we have had the State Senate and almost 16 years since we had the State Assembly and we need to face the fact that the party needs to modernize.
There are actual benefits to having a majority in the state legislature in both chambers. You can actually pass legislation and make sure legislation you do not want gets thrown in the trash can like how the Democratic Party is doing it to job creation legislation that legislators such as Bob Huff and Bob Dutton have written.
First, the Republicans need to stop trashing the few benefactors they have in Charles Munger and pass his platform. As what Governor Schwarzenegger said in his speech to the state party, “We are failing at the box office”. If you want to “play to win” and get Republicans elected, we need to have a new state of mind. When we play to win as a party we will be able to save California from ruin.
Political Scientists have discovered that California Republicans are outside the mainstream in a study of the political compositions of state legislatures across the United States. Maybe this is a message expressing how the Democratic Party will dominate California Politics for eternity if the California Republican Party can not figure out how to be mainstream yet conservative.
Maybe we need to maybe have a strict spending limit like the Gann Limit back into the state budget, remove all ballot box budgeting proposals such as Proposition 98. If we are going to remove most of Proposition 13, lets kill the sacred cows of the left as well. We could remove the 2/3rds requirement for tax bills and the state budget and make it 50+1 and if you have to go against the Gann Limit then it would be 2/3rds vote requirement. The 2/3rds requirement makes the California Republicans complacent where they will not do anything extra to help gain ground in the assembly and the senate. It is like oh my, we can advance our agenda without having to put resources in winning elections to become the majority party.
Republicans are most likely going to lose their 2/3rds protection, the Democratic Party has been relentless in working to take Republican leaning districts such as AD 10 and AD 15, and will likely take AD 36 and 65 very shortly as well. The same old playbook is not going to cut it, with the Democratic Party may have public employee money that helps protect the crumbling candy land of their excessive deferred compensation that will bankrupt the state. Sooner or later the candy land is going to crumble and as long as we are pragmatic, Californians will accept the tough talk for our tough times.
H/T: Proof that California Republicans are Crazy: Calitics