Category: Politics

Is the Republican Party, a grassroots organization or a top-down one? This essay is a brief look at the current direction of California’s GOP.

I once had a college professor—who was also an elected official—say that “the chief job of a politician is to get re-elected.” Those in power not only want to stay in power but they also wish to prevent any challengers from threatening their power. Both Parties are afflicted with this problem. Democrats tend to deal with this in private whereas Republicans do it more publicly and less deftly. The only thing that helps Republicans avoid publicity is that the media usually pays less attention.

Recently, I am aware of two incidents indicative of the decline of the Republican Party in California. Ironically, the death spiral of the party is nearly complete at the time that the state needs a principled conservative leader the most. My only question is will the Republican Party linger and continue to putrefy like a zombie from The Walking Dead or die swiftly and be replaced by a new one?

Both incidents that I discuss below illustrate erecting a wall of separation between the Party leadership and the rank and file people who self identify as Republicans. In short, the leadership wants to dictate what the Party should do and the less input from the public, the better.

Here in Sacramento County, the Republican Central Committee held its first ever endorsement vote for partisan office holders. This was a result of the elimination of the primary system because of the passage of proposition 14 a few years ago. Under the new system that governs elections beginning this year, only the top two candidates in June go to the November election regardless of the party preference listed on the ballot.

Sacramento’s Central Committee decided it was time to enforce its Bylaw provision that dues are required to be paid to vote. This “Pole Tax” was copied from the bylaws of San Diego County. The decision to enforce the requirement that dues be paid as a condition to vote was directed primarily at me. Throughout this term I have been allowed to vote and make motions or second them from the floor. The endorsement vote at this meeting is the first potentially meaningful vote the Committee has held since the officers were elected and the Bylaws approved. This is because the Bylaws vested all power in the Executive Board of the Committee. This draconian system has been in place for over a year.

At the endorsement meeting I was told that I was the only member who had not paid dues and I was singled out at the meeting for that reason by the Chair. (In fact several members have not paid the “tax” and some that had said they were doing so under duress. Other paid for their friends so they could vote. My source says at least three members have not paid).

I am on the Committee as an ex officio alternate for an Assembly candidate from the 2010 cycle. In effect, I represent the candidate elected by the Republicans in his district. Prior to the endorsement meeting, the candidate contacted me and told me that he would pay the dues so that I could vote. He has a friend who wanted an endorsement and felt he would need my vote. This is the only thing he has ever asked of me in my two years as his representative on the Committee. Out of respect for him I agreed to pay the $35 minimum. Dues are $100 annually unless members volunteer to work at party events and then they can pay $35. I put in my share of volunteer time, but it does not count toward their total because only their events count and not the work I do for candidates or Republican groups in the County. My Assembly candidate also spoke to the Chair prior to the meeting and thought they had an agreement.

At the meeting when the Chair singled me out for not paying dues, I talked with her and said that I had spoken to the candidate and was instructed to pay the $35 so that I could vote. Her response was that my dues were now $200. I said, “What?” “Oh, you owe $100 for last year and $100 for this year.” She said that dues were annual and I was in arrears. Then she countered with the offer that I could pay $135 and work off the rest. I again offered to pay $35 and was told “No.” When it was time to vote, I was sent to the back of the room.

I could vent on many facets of this event but I will limit comments to the best two arguments. First; members of this committee either directly or indirectly are elected by the people as their representatives.  Requiring a “pole tax” is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the law in a representative republic. No barriers should be placed between people and their representatives. Second, the current leadership of the Committee is hypocritical on the issue of dues. These are the same folks that protested and did not pay dues to a previous Committee leadership for the same reasons that I have stated both here and in previous blogs. Clearly their position is not one of principle—in the past the wrong people were in charge but now the right people are in charge—so dues should be paid.

I was relegated to the back of the room and became an observer to the events that followed. As it turned-out, none of the votes were close so had I voted it would not make a difference. The consultants in the group made sure that their clients were endorsed.

This endorsement dance was played-out in many counties of California prior to the State Republican Party weighing-in on CRP endorsed candidates.

The California Republican Party has had several years to decide what should be done now that traditional party primaries are abolished. They have done next to nothing about it. As a stop-gap measure, they voted a year ago to adopt the “McClintock Plan.” This was a compromise between the “Nehring Plan” and the “Legislative Plan.” It was spearheaded by Mike Spence and subsequently endorsed by Congressman Tom McClintock. The McClintock Plan—which was adopted by the CRP—is this: each partisan legislative race was to be treated like a Special Election. Each county central committee in the district would have to endorse the same candidate by a 2/3 majority for that candidate to secure the official endorsement of the CRP. This would give the candidate—in theory anyway—access to money from the CRP and inclusion in any slates sent to voters in the state.

The CRP had decreed that all endorsement votes were to be completed on or before March 8, 2012. Please note that the filing period for these offices did not close until close of business the following day. (I really dislike taking such votes before all candidates have even entered the race).

For example Beth Gaines—a first term Assemblywoman—is running in a district that includes portions of Placer and Sacramento Counties. Under the existing rules of the CRP—the McClintock Plan—she needed to be endorsed by both county central committees to secure the CRP. Her opponent in Placer was endorsed on a Wednesday (3/7) and the next night she was endorsed by the Sacramento committee. Under the CRP rules, there can be no endorsement by the CRP in this race.

However, when the CRP Board met to review the various local endorsements, a curious thing occurred. In race after race, the results of the various committees were nullified or ignored and current office holders were given the CRP endorsement even when they did not qualify under the rules adopted by the CRP. Even the aforementioned Mrs. Gaines was endorsed by the CRP—even though she was not entitled. (Entitled? That’s irony!)

The CRP Board went even further in their “star chamber” tactics. Before a single vote was ever cast, they winnowed a field of about 12 Republican candidates for US Senate to one with another wave of their magic wands. A vote of no more than 24 political elites on the CRP Board purported to speak for more than five million republicans without any of them being allowed to vote. Talk about disenfranchisement!

Do you see the theme here? To paraphrase a book by Laura Ingraham, the Republican motto in California seems to be “Shut-up and Vote How You’re Told.” The CRP wants your campaign contribution not your opinion. My reaction to this is if I wanted to be told what to do by a bunch of elites that decide what is best then I could always join the other party. Ronald Reagan once said that he didn’t leave the Democrat Party, they left him. I seem to be in the other political party that has now left Reagan. Oh well, I’ve always been a Conservative first and a Republican second.

No, really. By sending all the job opportunities to other countries he is not only diminishing the superiority of America and making us a socialist country but he is solving the immigration problem without bothering to secure our borders. In fact he is making us into such an unattractive place that soon our own people will be going elsewhere to seek opportunity and freedom. Maybe ABC got it wrong on how we become Amerika.

Attached are a few photos of the Occupy Sacramento protest. This group is conveniently located across from my employer so I get to see them in action.

The way this protest works is that a handful of people arrive each morning and set-up their operation.

In the early afternoon, a trickle of people begins to arrive. The crowds build as the television news trucks begin to arrive around 4 pm. Once the news crews get their obligatory live-shots for the 5 & 6 pm news, the protesters can go home.

This arrangement allows the media to perpetuate the lie that this is a widespread movement when they know it’s a staged event. They get ratings and the protesters get millions in free propaganda. So much for death to corporate greed.

This brings me to my other point which is if corporations are so evil, why do these folks use the Internet, wear clothing made for corporations by folks paid what many of their ilk call slave wages and coordinate via Smartphones designed and built by other evil conglomerates of business monopolies?

They are in reality just spoiled and ungrateful children. They are full of envy and jealously.

This is just an independent expenditure campaign to help re-elect Barack Obama. Barry Obama was a community organizer and so are they. What do you think Obama was doing before he entered politics?

The photos attached are of some of the core support vehicles that are running the occupy Sacramento protests. Read the stickers and you know everything that you need to about these people.

UPDATE 11-03-2011

Occupy has traded the old white truck for a U-Haul rental. This vehicle is parked on the perimeter of the park. By using a blue handicapped placard presumably they no longer need to pay for parking.

Today as I walked around the park, on the ground I saw a publication from the Watchtower proclaiming the end of poverty. Ironically it was not far from the tree where the homeless often nap.

 

The California Republican Party is going through the process of looking at the Party Platform. This ritual—which occurs every four years—has seen a marked change from previous meetings of the Platform Committee. This year, the “moderates” briefly succeeded in stripping all references to social issues from the platform. Some were subsequently re-inserted in generic ways while some are no longer in the draft constructed by a sub-committee of the Platform Committee. Abortion and marriage went from an entire section for each issue to one sentence in the new draft while opposition to euthanasia has been completely deleted.

Here are the parts of the platform document that reference abortion, guns and marriage. The underline means that text was added after being removed in the original draft. (Abortion and gun ownership are never mentioned in the new proposal. Marriage is no longer defined as being between one man and one woman.)

We believe in the sanctity of human life; therefore, we believe in the protection of all innocent human life.

The Republican Party supports traditional marriage as the foundational unit for our society and key for the future of our children.

We support our Constitutional Second Amendment rights.

 

Here are portions of a recent news account of the changes.

A proposed rewrite of the California Republican Party platform retreats from opposition to same-sex adoption, domestic partner benefits and child custody, avoids any mention of overturning Roe v. Wade and drops a demand to end virtually all federal and state benefits for illegal immigrants…

…The current platform, adopted in 2008, says state guns laws “disarm law-abiding citizens” and calls for the end to waiting periods to purchase firearms and inclusion of a right to carry concealed weapons in the state constitution. In the proposed version, a single sentence is included on gun ownership, saying the party supports Second Amendment rights.

A detailed section titled “The Right to Life” vanishes, including a call to reverse the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. It would be replaced with a single sentence on the protection of innocent human life, and the word “abortion” never appears.

The proposed platform states the party “supports traditional marriage,” a significant rewrite from 2008, when the platform said marriage should be defined as between a man and woman, and schools should not teach homosexuality as an “acceptable … lifestyle.” Californians have twice voted to outlaw same-sex marriage, but a federal judge last year declared the latest ban, known as Proposition 8, unconstitutional. The ruling is being contested in court.

It also drops a sentence opposing assisted suicide, as well as a line saying the party supports stem-cell research “that focuses on cures, not destroying innocent human life.”
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/08/05/moderates-try-to-push-calif-gop-toward-center/

The Party has been moving in this direction for many years but it appears that the Party is close to abandoning any mention of social issues. Ironically, party affiliation has become a distinction without meaning under the open primary rules that voters will be under in 2012. By eliminating one of the cornerstones of conservatism in the platform, people are now offered even less reasons to identify themselves as Republicans. Due to stalling and lack of vision, the Party has virtually assured themselves that few if any endorsements will be had during the next cycle. (They have no effective plan to function in the “Open Primary” environment and keep deferring the issue to future conventions.)

These trends plus the proposed reapportionment maps insure that the Republican brand will further erode and become literally a third party in California. Decline-to-State will soon pass the Republicans as the second largest party in California.

Lastly, who do Conservatives have to thank for their declining influence in the Platform Committee? Karen England. The week-end when she, Mike Spence, Ron Givens and the gang were trying their hostile takeover of CRA was the same week-end when elections were held by delegated to the California Republican Party to select members to represent them on the Platform Committee. Once again the circular firing squad turns victory into an opportunity for self-immolation.

I have been reading Exodus to my six year old son and it reinforces the idea that we Republicans will be wandering in the wilderness until this corrupt generation passes away. Perhaps by then the “Promised Land” will just be a mirage in our rear-view mirror. Our momentum now is to return to Egypt. If “moderate” Republicans get their way, they will be walking arm-in-arm with the Democrats as they lead us down the road to serfdom.

Today, Ken Barnes—a Republican that I have known for many years—had a piece published in the Sacramento Bee that deserves comment for many reasons. The letter is his farewell to the Republican Party. Barnes left much unsaid in his letter. I would like to fill in a few details that he left unstated and analyze his argument in the piece.

I was one of those rare species: a black Republican, the guy willing to spit into the wind of conventional thought, who was often showcased on camera at party events to prove inclusiveness.

But as a proud black man, I can no longer be a member of the Republican Party.

Being a Republican has long been a part of my personal and professional identities, so leaving the party is a difficult and emotional decision.

In 1998, as a young man searching for what I believed were shared values, I cut ties with the Democratic Party and became a Republican. Democrats, in my view, had become unwelcoming to those holding center-right views not in lockstep with the party, and it was my belief that through hard work, the Republican Party could be utilized as a vehicle for improving our community.

For the next 13 years, I dedicated myself to growing the conservative base of the Republican Party, and in the process bound myself in emotion and deed.

During that time, I worked on behalf of Republican candidates at all levels, from presidential and gubernatorial campaigns, on down to local elections.

I have had the pleasure of serving as president of the Sacramento Republican Assembly, a term as a member of the California Republican Party executive committee, and most recently as treasurer of the Sacramento County Republican Party.

Like Ken, I was once a member of the Sacramento Republican Assembly. When we attempted to form a CRA chapter in southern Sacramento County, Ken was one of many that opposed the move. I have occasionally been a delegate to the California Republican Party convention; however, unlike Ken I have never served on the Executive Committee of the State Party. I suspect that it would be a colossal frustration to be part of that group.
Lastly, Ken and I both have served on the Sacramento County Republican Party (aka Central Committee). Ken was one of four Treasurers to serve in the last term. Once it was clear that he took the job seriously, he was thrown under the proverbial bus like many others that pledged themselves to Chair Sue Blake. They literally would not let him speak to the financial condition of the County Party and ignored any recommendations that he tried to make to help the group stay financially solvent. When the new committee was seated, he wasn’t even allowed to give a final financial report to the group even though he was present at the meeting with multiple copies of the report ready for distribution.

If memory serves correctly, when the Obama cartoon of the watermelon patch at the White House was posted on the old Sacramento County Party website, Ken was the first one to complain and get it taken down.
Barnes also was the person that applied to run for the Los Rios Community College District that went to court when Deborah Ortiz was allowed on the ballot even though she did not file for the office until after the filing deadline. I know that Barnes spent over $15,000 in legal fees to fight this and lost even though he was clearly in the right. He got little support from any of his fellow Republicans. Much of the 400 hours mentioned below was probably related to the legal fight and campaign activity.

Last year alone, I donated more than 400 hours of my time to the Republican Party and made financial contributions to a number of Republican candidates.

As of late, however, when I look at myself in the mirror there is one question which perplexes me: Can I, in good conscience, remain affiliated with an organization whose message purveyors of racism and bigotry find attractive?

Generally speaking, Republicans are decent people, and naturally, many of my closest friends vote Republican. As with any large organization or group, there will always be people at the fringes who hold views that are not representative of the body.

An organization cannot control the behavior of each individual actor, but it can control its response to abhorrent conduct.

The latest incident in a string of tawdry, race-based actions was the promotion of a racist cartoon by elected Orange County Republican Party Central Committee member Marilyn Davenport. The cartoon depicted President Barack Obama and his parents as chimpanzees, while simultaneously implying that the president is not a legitimate American, but rather an African-born interloper.

While the Orange County GOP chairman and a number of other committee members were quick to condemn the image and Davenport, what’s disturbing is the incredible number of people who continue to defend Davenport’s actions as well as the cartoon itself.

Had this been an isolated event, it could be set aside as a mere aberration. However, when placed in the context of similar offenses by the same self-identified tea party-conservative Republicans, there emerges a disturbing pattern of extreme intolerance.

Ken, my point in using the two photos that I included in this post is that much worse was done to George W Bush and there was never any attempt on the Democrat side of the isle to reign-in these folks. You are holding us to a standard that does not even exist—let alone constrain—the other guys. If you don’t believe me Google “George W Bush monkey” and click on images.

Using the same reasoning applied here, I next expect you to renounce Christianity because there are hypocrites in the Church and some folks have done wrong in the name of the Church.

Ken also mixes the Tea Party and the Republican Party. While many folks may overlap both groups, the Tea Party encompasses folks that would never identify themselves with either the Democrats or Republicans. I have been to many Tea Party functions and never seen anything racist. Opposition to the current President is due to his policies not his race.

Over the past two years, we have seen Republicans use long-held racist imagery in portrayals of Obama. The president has been depicted as a communist witch doctor, a man inclined to plant watermelons on the White House lawn, and we watched in disbelief as his face was placed on an “Obama Buck Food Stamp” along with stereotyped pictures of fried chicken, barbecue ribs, Kool-Aid and the obligatory watermelon.

Again, go on Google and you will see many of these things with George W Bush. Some of these things listed by Barnes in the paragraph above are not racial references. Since the first George Bush introduced “voodoo economics” into the political lexicon before Ken was probably born and Obama has as much hope as a witchdoctor of making his policies work I could see someone trying to make that work; especially with the birth certificate non-sense in the mix. I think it would be in poor taste but does that mean it has to be racist? I’m not sure. Yeah, I already mentioned the watermelon cartoon. As for Obama Buck Food Stamp, I remember Bill Clinton being on the three dollar bill and the million dollar one also. With Obama in charge, more people are on food stamps now than at any time since the program began, this is definitely fair game and absolutely true. While I am conceding that watermelon, fried chicken and ribs are stereotypical foods for blacks, Kool-Aid is not. This again harkens back even further than “voodoo economics” to Jim Jones and the mass suicide. It is a fact that many support Obama solely because of irrational reasons such as his race. It can be argued that blindly following this lightweight regardless of his policies is “drinking to Kool-Aid”.

What does any of this have to do with public policy or conservative values? Here is a man who excelled academically at the finest schools in the world, has a wonderful in-tact family, worked hard and rose to become president of the United States. Yet in spite of his accomplishments, the president is still labeled an illegitimate, socialist, African witch doctor and has his face superimposed on a chimpanzee.

With all due respect, Obama has never released his academic records so the claim of Obama excelling is an assertion without any basis in fact. How hard he worked to become president is a debatable proposition. He was in the second year of his first term in the US Senate when he decided to run. Obama clearly is lacking in real world experience when it comes to economic policies and most other aspects of the job. He is at the very least a socialist, while communist or fascist seem closer to the mark. It really comes down to who owns the means of production, the government or industry controlled by the State. Clearly whatever he is, capitalist is not one of the descriptions.

If this can be done to a black man who is the leader of the free world, how long will it be before fellow Republicans insert my face on a chimpanzee?

Ken, it was done to a white president first. I don’t believe in Darwin so the thought of doing such a thing is not in my personality. We are the party that freed the slaves and gave blacks the voting rights act and a score of other civil rights reforms so your accusation is without merit.

These behaviors also raise larger issues for African Americans and other minority groups within the GOP. How can I look my parents in the eye and tell them I’m a Republican in spite of these offenses? If he were still living, could my Latino father-in-law be proud that his daughter supports the GOP, in spite of the constant anti-Latino rhetoric that comes from the party? Can gay family members reconcile my support of a party that seeks to strip them of their basic human rights?

Ken, Republicans—at least the conservative ones that I hang-out with—do not see people as groups and categories. Those folks are in the other party. I don’t care about your race or gender, just do you have ideas to help the country or hurt it. On the whole republicans are better on the issues that make this country great. Republicans are not anti-Latino. We are in favor of folks following the rules to get here. Yes, the immigration system is broken but that is a federal issue which they are unwilling to fix. The problem is that immigrants to our country are no longer assimilated into the culture because the unifying portions of that culture are under attack. You know this because we have spoken about this before. As for gays, they are stripping me of what it means to be married. They are the ones destroying the culture both on marriage and on the life issue. To say sexual perversion is wrong is not a denial of “basic human rights” it is a fact. Gays are under God’s judgment and need repentance not affirmation. I believe in family values not an Orwellian attempt to redefine “marriage” and “family” to be more inclusive. Again, if you have so much trouble with the Scriptures then perhaps you need to abandon Christianity as well because now your problem is with God not the Republican Party.

These are not issues which pit moderate against conservative views, but rather consequential matters which transcend political positioning and speak to universal human values.

There are a number of Republicans (and Democrats) who will view my switch to “decline to state” as a net gain for the Democratic Party. However, I reject the theory of zero-sum politics which claim we live in a binary world of Democrats and Republicans, where a lack of support for one side works only to empower the other.

Having now been active in both major political parties, I’ve discovered the common prohibited activity is critical thinking.

President Ronald Reagan once famously said, “I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me,” and I can now say that I have been abandoned by both Democrats and Republicans.

In order to stay true to myself, my family and values, the only rational, responsible option is independence.

The first thing I read in Ken’s conclusion is that he is without hope. Yeah, it’s discouraging to be a Republican now. Since Ken wrote this it has gotten worse too. Look at the new maps released by the redistricting group. The California Republican Party dies in November of next year if things stay like they are. God has called me to work in the Republican Party and the good news is that the results are up to Him not me. I just have to be faithful to do my part. My job is to obey. The fact that Ken is quitting saddens me, but I was glad I knew him when he thought he could make a difference.

Occasionally unintended moments of humor do arise in the political world. During the Rush Limbaugh show on KFBK this morning I heard an independent expenditure ad on behalf of Assembly Candidate Beth Gaines that caused me to get a good laugh.

The Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians has the casino on Interstate 5 near Corning. They are running political ads on behalf of Gaines. Prior to the ad running, there is the required legal disclaimer that normally runs at the beginning or end of such ads. The wording is something like this: the content of the ad is not endorsed by any candidate and the ad is paid for by the Nomlaki Indian tribe. Then the ad espouses the virtues of Gaines and ends with the tag that “she is one of us.”

When I heard that tag line I laughed out loud. I have walked precincts with Beth and her Senator husband and I can assure you that she is as lily white as I am. The thought that an Indian tribe would run an ad with the theme that she is “one of us” is hysterically funny.

I hope she wins the special election tomorrow and then we can all find out what the tribe meant.

Two rumors have been circulating lately about the process of drawing new lines for California districts for Congress, Senate and Assembly.

First, one consultant on the short list of possible vendors to help the citizen’s commission draw the new lines is directly affiliated with the guy that drew the lines last time Jerry Brown was governor.  This group claims to be non-partisan but they are just a front for Democrats.

Second, the new lines for Sacramento County will include two self contained congressional seats. By self-contained I mean that the districts will likely be wholly within the county. The western district will run from Natomas thru Sacramento to Elk Grove. This will be the new safe seat for Doris Matsui and the other district would be the more competitive home of Dan Lungren.

Let’s see if these two rumors come to pass.

Thanks to Congressman Tom McClintock, the California Republican Party was delivered from the destructive course of action advocated by outgoing chair, Ron Nehring. In the eleventh hour, McClintock lent his name to the proposal by Mike Spence to move to a vote by mail caucus beginning in 2014. While not perfect, the Spence plan will allow a primary election to be conducted via mail and allow any interested registered Republicans to participate. Despite three years to plan for it, the Party decided that they did not have the time to implement the system for the 2012 election cycle and opted for a “do no harm” approach to this series of elections.

Spence’s proposal is a positive development but it opens a series of new questions that should be addressed at the next convention.

My peer group has talked it over and we think that using snail mail for anything is costly and if the CRP had any visionary folks they would get the primary set-up as an online voting system. This would be a perfect opportunity for any aspiring tech company to field test their voting system under actual conditions without the repercussions of screwing-up an election for a government entity. After all California is the home of Silicon Valley and such a system is a logical extension of technology.

In addition, the CRP has no clue how to pay for the primary. In the past this exercise has always been paid for by taxpayers. Now that it will become privately funded we are entering uncharted territory.

The one office not addressed by this proposal is the election of Central Committee members. Should this be the only partisan election still paid by taxpayers? How does this affect McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws? Are Central Committees still needed or are they relics of a bygone era?

Allowing registered voters to continue to participate is good but trusting the CRP to get it right is a slightly more dubious proposition.

Two more days until Jerry Brown’s deadline for a ballot measure to be approved by the legislature so voters can raise their own taxes in June. Will Republicans hold fast or will Jerry find replacements for Roger Neillo and Abel Maldonado?