Occupy Sacramento

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.

This truck is the core support vehicle for the protest.

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.

 

California Republican Platform Committee Rejects Conservatism

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.

Reaction to SB 48: Tilting at Windmills

This week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the Mark Leno bill that mandated that all California public schools must integrate instruction of lesbian, gay and bi-sexual people into their curriculum from Kindergarten thru high school. That Brown signed yet another stupid social engineering bill from Leno is no surprise, I was disappointed by the predictable reactionary response from some on the Conservative side of the isle.

As usual, our guys are suffering a loss of big picture. They want to reverse SB 48—which I think is a good idea—but they have no interest in not only reversing SB 48 but protecting our children from similar legislation that has been passed as well as any more stupid ideas that might be forced upon us in the future.

Clearly the quickest route to challenge bad legislation is through the ballot initiative process. But what kind of initiative? Do we simply just reverse SB 48 knowing that they will tweak it slightly and pass it again or do we try to reform the system in a way that such legislation is meaningless? If they both cost the same to bring before voters then which is the wiser course of action? Which will have the best possibility of success?

Yesterday I received an email that advocated a simple reversal of SB 48. This was my response.

This is not a strategic way of dealing with this issue. It would be better to do a ballot initiative to put curriculum decisions into the hands of local school boards. If local schools could decide textbooks and standards and not have these decisions forced upon them by legislators and the State Dept of Education, you would allow more accountability for education and protect children from these stupid mandates from people like Mark Leno.

Fighting SB48 head-on is a losing proposition. First it will rally the gays, unions and the Democrat Party against you. Second, we don’t have the money to fight this battle. Third, when we lose, it will embolden the other side to take this nationwide. In the end we will be worse-off for fighting on their terms. You need to redefine this issue in a way that advances favorable reasons why local control is better than these stupid and irrelevant (and politically correct) social engineering mandates.

California schools are in the bottom of the nation in terms of education. Arguing against Mark Leno and mandates for social engineering should be argued on the basis that our children and the teachers don’t have time for this B.S. when the children can’t learn the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. Make SB48 irrelevant by placing curriculum control on a local level. This is both the Republican way and the way our Founders intended these decisions to be made.

Sincerely,

Then last night I saw this on the KOVR TV website.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/07/15/group-begins-pushing-back-against-gay-history-bill/

Group Begins Pushing Back Against Gay History Bill

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) – A family advocacy group is already challenging a new California law that adds lessons about gays to social studies classes.

Paulo Sibaja of the Sacramento-based Capitol Resource Institute said he started the process Friday for a statewide vote to overturn the bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown a day earlier.

Brown, a Democrat, signed SB 48, making California the first state in the nation to teach about gays and lesbians in a public school curriculum.

Advocates say the new law will teach students to be more accepting in light of the bullying that happens to gay students. It also ensures that students are taught about the contributions of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in social studies.

Conservatives opposed the law, saying it would teach children to accept homosexuality.

Then this morning I was sent the following:

YOU CANNOT HIT A HOMERUN UNLESS YOU SWING THE BAT.
SURRENDER IS NOT THE AMERICAN WAY
THIS IS A 100% DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM AND PROMOTING A REPEAL WILL GALVANIZE THE PUBLIC TO WHAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY BELIEVES, THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY.
WE WILL BE ABLE TO AFFILIATE WITH FAMILY VALUE ADVOCATES, INDEPENTANTS, AND THE UNEDUCATED VOTERS.  2012 IS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE REPEAL BEING ON THE BALLOT BRINGING OUT THE FRIENDLY VOTERS.

The letter was sent all in capital letters which we all know is reserved for shouting. Will shouting at me do any good? Not likely.

Neither the author quoted above nor the Capitol Resource Institute has a proverbial “pot to piss in” so where do they think they will get the millions of dollars to qualify a ballot initiative or run the campaign necessary to win. To run a successful campaign they will need around 30 million dollars just to be credible. As they have defined it, this is such a narrow issue that they have no hope of winning.

Just look at the next election cycle. We have new legislative districts in all 50 states, Presidential primaries, congressional races, some important US Senate races and we are arguably in the midst of a depression (not a recession) and you want to wage this war against the gays, the unions and the Democrat Party. The public employee unions in California have over 250 million dollars to spend in the next election. Give these realities, where are you going to find the money from the private sector that you need to run a stop SB 48 campaign? What did you not understand about the stop AB 23 campaign? It was funded by businesses not a bunch of poor folks in churches and they lost badly. Why would the stop AB 48 campaign be any different?

Scripture and common sense both tell us not to start something that we cannot successfully complete. Instead of tilting at the SB 48 windmill why not do something that reforms the educational process and returns local control and accountability. If Leno’s stupid bill gets negated by the empowerment of local school districts then too bad.

I often say that we are playing checkers—usually badly—while the other side is playing chess. They are several moves ahead and we are marveling at what they are able to accomplish. Is it any wonder that we lose so badly? Not really! Strategic thinking in conservative political circles is a rare commodity.

Ken Barnes Bails-out of GOP

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.

Tribe Declares Beth Gaines “one of us”

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.

Reapportionment Rumors

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.

CRP Convention

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.

Open Letter to CRA Leaders calling for response to the Ron Nehring amendment

CRA has been a leader in California Republican Party politics for over 75 years. One distinctive that has always set CRA apart from other groups is the emphasis on pre-primary endorsements. In the wake of the passage of Prop 14, the pre-primary endorsement is no longer possible. However, I think most in CRA would like to have our local chapters have a voice in deciding who wins in the June election. The Nehring proposal will effectively make the endorsement of any republican candidate not selected by his process illegal.

CRA members who are delegates to the endorsing conventions must literally tow the party line or risk expulsion for four years from any party activity. The CRA no longer has a prohibition on officers also serving on county committees but the inverse is about to be true. The CRA will be muzzled on its choice of candidates or lose its right to participate in the selection process.

Nehring’s proposal implements at top-down leadership style much like he ran in San Diego County as its Central Committee Chair. CRA is a grassroots, bottom-up organization.

Nehring is advocating a “smoke filled room,” behind closed doors event, populated by party insiders and is disenfranchising millions of republican voters by excluding them from the process. Whatever process is adopted, it must include the opportunity for rank and file republicans to have a voice. If regular republicans are told by party bosses who their nominee is then haven’t we crossed the proverbial Rubicon and become the Democrat party. After all that’s how they got Jerry Brown.

Nehring’s proposal has many shortcomings that we still have time to fix but in order to do so we must organize enough to vote this down at the spring convention and work to substitute a better framework for adoption in September. This is the crucial issue of the 2012 election and we need to start acting now.

I think CRA needs to adopt a statement of principles about what would be an acceptable process for endorsement. I suggest the following as a basis for that discussion.
• If the CRP is to establish an official party nominee, all registered republicans should be afforded an opportunity to have input into that system. I don’t think a majority will actually participate but the fact that they could if they chose to will be the difference between the nominee being accepted or ignored. If our voters think they are being dictated to by the party, then I think many will sever their ties to Republican Party. Ronald Reagan had faith in the American people and so should we.
• No incumbent should be given a free pass for endorsement just because he won the last election. We can all name a host of RINOs that deserve to have a challenger from within our own party. Candidates that lose touch with their constituents always move decidedly to the Left.
• The entire process must be open to the public. Transparency and the rule of law will set us apart from the Democrats. When California goes off the cliff, we must show that we are offering something different and better not just more of the same if we hope to gain the trust of the electorate.

The Republican Brand is tarnished and Nehring’s plan will relegate us into obscurity. If it passed, in four short years we will be hearing of the Tea Party versus the Democrats because no one will be a Republican any more.

I implore you to stop the Nehring plan and work to open the process to all republicans.

CRP Says Forget about 1099s

Oops. I just got word that the California Republican Party neglected to send Form 1099s to their campaign workers. The forms were legally required to be sent by January 31st. Their position is it is a matter of conscience whether you wish to report the income. They reported it to the FEC as services rendered. I guess they missed the part about getting a corporate ID number or needing to report the workers paid over $600.

Did they learn nothing from all the BS Meg Whitman went thru with her maid?