Inland Utopia

It is sad when Republicans have to move to the anti-equality side in order to get elected. However if you are replacing a Democratic candidate who leans liberal for the last forty years, equality should not have to be sacrificed. I could respect Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization of Marriage since she has more consistent policy views.

For Wisconsin’s 7th district, if I ever lived there I would be happy to support the Democratic Party candidate because Sean Duffy is an opportunistic fool who turns on a dime because he only wanted political support. When I ran for State Assembly 8 years ago, people told me to move to the direction the base wanted, but if that is incompatible with your principles you should stand with your principles.

It is ironic that someone stars in a movie supporting equality in marriage, ends up standing against the issue. However maybe Sean and his wife were doing it just to pay the law school bills.

H/T: Good As You

Crossposted from iepolitics.com

Senator Dutton has written yet another eloquent column about why we should pass Republican Party budget solutions, but Democratic Party legislators want to do it their way no matter how many more Californians will become unemployed or how massive the state’s budget problems will become in future years.

Even though Republicans may have the winning issues on the state budget and law and order, our state is so gerrymandered where the Democratic Party will likely be able to pass their state budgets in a veto-resistant manner after the next two elections. The Democratic Party has State Senate District 12 and 15 in the cross hairs so they can be ready to pass budgets without Republican Party influence.

Unfortunately we will have to see California collapse before voters ever do consider the Republican Party as a viable choice, but even so there are many demographic groups who would rather vote for a dog instead of a Republican. Republicans are going to have to build a relationship with these demographic groups that Republicans used as wedge issues in order to adapt to the demographics of our state today.

Yes, it would be nice for California to live within its means. However we already maxed out our credit cards for us to do a Keynesian economic solution so we have to rely on the economic theories of Hayek. Maybe with a majority vote budget and Proposition 14 that already passed, Republicans would have to learn to develop mainstream candidates that could get elected in places such as Santa Clara, Glendale, Torrance and Ontario instead of having to rely on the fringe for popular support where they can comfortably sustain being in the perpetual minority.

I do not want California to end up like Illinois where they have gave up on paying their schools, medical providers and other agencies that rely upon state assistance. Unfortunately political power blinds both political parties where it is impossible for our legislators to come up with a solution because Republicans are zealots for no taxes at any cost and Democrats must feed the labor union beast. It is going to take sacrifice shared equally from both sides for a solution to happen.

Originally at iepolitics.com

Recently the Riverside County Republican Party decided to play to their fringe by slamming one of the candidates with a very tasteless accusation which helped get a liberal Democratic Party member Scott Hines elected.

Yes, Rancho Mirage may be conservative in nature, but the Coachella Valley has a sizable lesbian and gay population. Upsetting the gay and lesbian population and their straight allies can be very dangerous in an age where each vote counts. Assembly District 80 could have been won for example if the Republican Party nominated a socially inclusive candidate as an example.  Perhaps the individual who was only 71 votes ahead of Scott Hines on Election Day would have still won if the party’s tasteless advertising campaign was never done.

Yes, the Riverside County Republican Party and its affiliates were right to call him a fiscal liberal, but there was a key word that led to the Republicans losing this election with the slogan “Don’t let Palm Springs politics infect Rancho Mirage.” Where the word infects was in red letters and italicized where it alluded to HIV. Gay baiting has no place in a political campaign, in particular in a constituency with a sizable gay population.

Even though gay baiting Riverside Community College Trustee Mark Takano may have won an election for Congressman Calvert in 1994, it will no longer win elections for the Riverside County Republican Party.

Republicans are going through a period of declining voter registration, and if we alienate more demographic groups who might be receptive to the party message then this will lead towards a longer dominance by the Democratic Party.

I thought this would be a relevant repost since this talks about a politician in my local area. I was going to post this on iepolitics.com, but their site is broken where I am not able to submit any new submissions.

By Dennis Saunders

With all the talk lately about “purity tests” in the GOP, here’s a story about one conservative lawmaker in California who is paying the price for voting his conscience over party.

The Washington Post has an in-depth story on California State Assemblyman Anthony Adams who is catching heat for one vote in the state legislature.  Adams is not some “squishy moderate;” he is a pro-life, anti-gay marriage Republican.  But when the state government had to deal with a massive deficit he faced a hard choice:

Throughout his legislative career, he has faithfully hewed to the precepts of social and fiscal conservatism: opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control and most new spending.

But, during budget deliberations early this year, the exigencies of governance collided with his pledge against more taxes. Suddenly Adams wondered whether he could keep his promise. The state’s economy had cratered. The projected budget deficit without new taxes exceeded $42 billion, and that already included deep cuts to education and social programs.

With most Republican legislators preferring additional spending cuts to tax increases, the prospect of a deadlock loomed. It would mean severe pain for people doing business with the state, a tortured Adams told close aides, friends and family members. “State people were not getting paychecks,” he remembers. “We faced the possibility of paying those people off in IOUs for quite some time. . . . I thought it was unconscionable not to pay people we owe.”

Still, Adams realized the possibly dire cost of going back on his 2006 pledge: “I knew there was no easily defensible position for me.”

He voted for the tax increases and then faced a conservative onslaught. A campaign was started to recall him from office. Never mind that he voted with his party about 95 percent of the time.

Some Republicans shed no tears for harassing Adams. They seek to punish him for his errant vote.

A few points come to mind. First, it seems that there are some in the GOP that don’t want people who govern more than they want mindless cheerleaders. Maybe that will appeal to some of the die hard folks, but most normal people don’t find that helpful.

Second, I’ve heard some people shrug upon hearing about the “purity tests” and attempts to purge and purify the party. For some, these are only directed at those moderates who should have left the party long ago. But Adams is not a social moderate. And yet, he has been treated like a heretic for one vote. The message here is very clear: if anyone strays on one issue, they are deemed a “RINO.” These extremists are no longer aiming at moderates, but anyone who does anything that goes against their definition of a Republican.

This story is a reminder that if a conservative Republican isn’t safe because he strayed from ideology on one vote, then no one is safe.

Something has to be done to stop this political suicide.

Reposted from Republicans United, with author’s permission.