For those who are keeping track, Appropriations Madness is over. More than 600 bills were rushed through the the Assembly Suspense Calendar alone. Many of these bills were "held" and virtually killed while most moved on to the floor for a full vote. Additionally, the Senate Appropriations Committee moved along hundreds more bills.
Among the bills killed on Suspense was the controversial spanking bill. Among the bills passed was the measure to legalize Gay Marriage in California.
Worth noting was an article in the Sacramento Bee this week that criticized Assemblyman Mark Leno, Chair of Assembly Appropriations, for hosting a fundraiser the day before the biggest Appropriations hearing of the year. While this is clearly an avenue that eases the ability for high powered lobbyists to reach the chair of Appropriations and, as the CRP said, "doesn't pass the smell test," it is hardly unique to Mr. Leno.
Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger held events during the months of August and September when he is expected to act on every piece of legislation passed by the Legislature during that year. Members of both parties from the Senate and Assembly routinely hold fundraisers during all parts of the year including Budgeting Mayhem and Floorapalooza.
Simply holding a fundraiser during a busy time of the year doesn't necessarily mean a politician is beholden to special interest groups. But in the case of Mr. Leno who is running against Ms. Miggy for the Senate, one must straighten up and fly right. Advice to Mark Leno: Keep Carole's exploits in the news. If this is the worst they've got on you, you've got it made.
Showing posts with label Arnold Schwarzenegger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arnold Schwarzenegger. Show all posts
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Gender Neutral Marriage?
Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco reintroduced his Gay Marriage bill this year. This week, it made its first major progress in the 2007-2008 legislative session.
On Tuesday, April 10, Assembly Bill 43 was heard in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. After a heated discussion with passionate witnesses on both sides, the bill was passed on a 7-3 vote.
In favor were Assemblymembers Evans, Feuer, Jones, Krekorian, Laird, Levine, and Lieber. In opposition were Tran, Adams, and Keene. This constituted a strict party-line vote with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition.
While marriage is the last real legislative inequality faced by Gays and Lesbians in California, this bill isn't the magic pill that will cure our problems. Even if this bill is passed and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger (who has indicated he will veto it on the same grounds he used last year), Gay Marriage in California would require a vote of the people or a ruling of the courts to be granted.
The Knight Initiative, Prop 22, banned same sex marriage. Specifically, Section 308.5 of the California Family Code states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Because those words were added by an initiative passed by a majority of voters, it would require an act of the voters to remove those words--an act of the Legislature would be insufficient to repeal the Knight Initiative.
However, although Prop 22 seems clear under a first reading, it is actually quite ambiguous. Section 300, et. seq of the Family Code seem to be clearly arranged in a specific order. Section 300 governs the definition of marriage as a relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. Subsequent sections govern the solemnization of marriage. Section 308 clarifies that marriages contracted outside of California are valid in this state.
It is possible, therefore, that Section 308.5 is really a subsection of 308 intended to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages obtained outside of this state.
Supporting this case, the ballot arguments in support of Proposition 22 focused on marriages from other states. For example, it was stated in the proponents' arguments: "Opponents say Proposition 22 is unnecessary. THE TRUTH IS, UNLESS WE PASS PROPOSITION 22, LEGAL LOOPHOLES COULD FORCE CALIFORNIA TO RECOGNIZE 'SAME-SEX MARRIAGES' PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES."
While AB 43 may not be the magic, cure-all pill for marriage equality, it can't hurt our cause in California. The Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger would do well to pass and sign this bill into law. Still, it is the Court that should immediately interpret the meaning of Prop 22 and the constitutionality of any Gay Marriage ban in California. The rights of millions of Californians hang in the balance.
On Tuesday, April 10, Assembly Bill 43 was heard in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. After a heated discussion with passionate witnesses on both sides, the bill was passed on a 7-3 vote.
In favor were Assemblymembers Evans, Feuer, Jones, Krekorian, Laird, Levine, and Lieber. In opposition were Tran, Adams, and Keene. This constituted a strict party-line vote with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition.
While marriage is the last real legislative inequality faced by Gays and Lesbians in California, this bill isn't the magic pill that will cure our problems. Even if this bill is passed and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger (who has indicated he will veto it on the same grounds he used last year), Gay Marriage in California would require a vote of the people or a ruling of the courts to be granted.
The Knight Initiative, Prop 22, banned same sex marriage. Specifically, Section 308.5 of the California Family Code states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Because those words were added by an initiative passed by a majority of voters, it would require an act of the voters to remove those words--an act of the Legislature would be insufficient to repeal the Knight Initiative.
However, although Prop 22 seems clear under a first reading, it is actually quite ambiguous. Section 300, et. seq of the Family Code seem to be clearly arranged in a specific order. Section 300 governs the definition of marriage as a relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. Subsequent sections govern the solemnization of marriage. Section 308 clarifies that marriages contracted outside of California are valid in this state.
It is possible, therefore, that Section 308.5 is really a subsection of 308 intended to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages obtained outside of this state.
Supporting this case, the ballot arguments in support of Proposition 22 focused on marriages from other states. For example, it was stated in the proponents' arguments: "Opponents say Proposition 22 is unnecessary. THE TRUTH IS, UNLESS WE PASS PROPOSITION 22, LEGAL LOOPHOLES COULD FORCE CALIFORNIA TO RECOGNIZE 'SAME-SEX MARRIAGES' PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES."
While AB 43 may not be the magic, cure-all pill for marriage equality, it can't hurt our cause in California. The Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger would do well to pass and sign this bill into law. Still, it is the Court that should immediately interpret the meaning of Prop 22 and the constitutionality of any Gay Marriage ban in California. The rights of millions of Californians hang in the balance.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Hot Blooded Latina to Speak with Gay Republicans
Republican Assemblymember Bonnie Garcia will be making a visit to the Sacramento chapter of Log Cabin Republicans. She will be the keynote speaker for the regularly scheduled April meeting. This announcement comes on the heels of a report pubished by the California Log Cabin Republicans listing the "Gay factor" in Republican Assembly Districts throughout the state.
Palm Springs, which is a part of Garcia's Assembly District 80 is the gayest city in California, according to the report.
Garcia made headlines last year when she narrowly won reelection after Governor Schwarzenegger referred to her as a "Hot Blooded Latina" and she commented that she wouldn't throw the Governor out of bed. She is also well known in Sacramento circles for her wild, exuberant personality and sense of humor.
The Log Cabin Republicans meeting will be on Wednesday, April 25 at 7pm at Carrow's Restaurant (2800 J Street, Sacramento).
Palm Springs, which is a part of Garcia's Assembly District 80 is the gayest city in California, according to the report.
Garcia made headlines last year when she narrowly won reelection after Governor Schwarzenegger referred to her as a "Hot Blooded Latina" and she commented that she wouldn't throw the Governor out of bed. She is also well known in Sacramento circles for her wild, exuberant personality and sense of humor.
The Log Cabin Republicans meeting will be on Wednesday, April 25 at 7pm at Carrow's Restaurant (2800 J Street, Sacramento).
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Buy California Grown
It seems that gawkers everywhere are spotting royalty in interesting places. And I am not talking about Princes William and Harry. California's own Katherine Schwarzenegger, the Governor's 17 year old daughter, has been spotted touring prestigious schools on both coasts.
Back in January, blogger Frank Russo caught Miss Schwarzenegger with First Lady Maria Shriver on Berkeley's very own Telegraph Avenue. The two were taking a look at the wares sold by the iconic street vendors. At one such stop, the two looked at nearly every political t-shirt and bumper sticker sold by the vendor that usually sets up his stand on the corner of Bancroft and Telegraph nearest American Apparel. Many of these shirts are emblazoned with less-than-flattering images of dear old Arnie.
It appears, though, that Cal may have a bit of competition in courting the Governor's daughter. Recently, Katherine Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver, and Eunice Kennedy Shriver were spotted at George Washington University in Washington, DC. Mother and Daughter (but not Grandmother, who visited the admissions office but left soon after) took a walking tour of the campus. According to the student tour guide that led the two through the Foggy Bottom campus, the Schwarzenegger family visited at least two other campuses in the DC area that day including Shriver's alma mater, Georgetown.
My always-impartial advice to Katherine: Buy California Grown. Go Bears!
Back in January, blogger Frank Russo caught Miss Schwarzenegger with First Lady Maria Shriver on Berkeley's very own Telegraph Avenue. The two were taking a look at the wares sold by the iconic street vendors. At one such stop, the two looked at nearly every political t-shirt and bumper sticker sold by the vendor that usually sets up his stand on the corner of Bancroft and Telegraph nearest American Apparel. Many of these shirts are emblazoned with less-than-flattering images of dear old Arnie.
It appears, though, that Cal may have a bit of competition in courting the Governor's daughter. Recently, Katherine Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver, and Eunice Kennedy Shriver were spotted at George Washington University in Washington, DC. Mother and Daughter (but not Grandmother, who visited the admissions office but left soon after) took a walking tour of the campus. According to the student tour guide that led the two through the Foggy Bottom campus, the Schwarzenegger family visited at least two other campuses in the DC area that day including Shriver's alma mater, Georgetown.
My always-impartial advice to Katherine: Buy California Grown. Go Bears!
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Is Everybody Running?
Apparently the only people not running for President in 2008 are Arnold Schwarzenegger and me. I attribute the lack of both of our candicacies to constitutional ineligibility for the Oval Office.
Now that Clinton and Obama have publicly announced, Giuliani has filed papers, and McCain and Romney are expected to announce their intentions soon. Add to these candidates Duncan Hunter, Joe Biden, and other unlikely hopefuls and the race for the White House will be quite a crowded one.
This year will be a fun one for political crackheads!
Now that Clinton and Obama have publicly announced, Giuliani has filed papers, and McCain and Romney are expected to announce their intentions soon. Add to these candidates Duncan Hunter, Joe Biden, and other unlikely hopefuls and the race for the White House will be quite a crowded one.
This year will be a fun one for political crackheads!
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Have No Fear, Nanny State is here!
Nanny State is here to save the day! (Actually, that scares me even more!)
Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed Universal Health Care. Assemblymember Sally Lieber has proposed an anti-spanking bill. No fewer than five California legislators are attempting to ban trans fats.
Republicans, as usual, are crying foul and claiming that Big Brother is going to mess things up. As a general rule, I agree with the idea that the Government should allow the private sector to fix problems and allow maximum personal liberty. In my mind, the government is only responsible to protect the rights and property of the people and entities it serves.
But I disagree with the mainstream Republican line on these issues. I have recently posted on Healthcare, so I will focus primarily on transfats and spanking today.
TRANS FAT
Following the lead of New York City and the advice of nutritionists everywhere, California may decide to ban or limit the use of trans fat in prepared foods in the near future. Despite the tasty goodness that trans fats can lend to many delicious fried foods, I couldn't be happier!
Imagine a world without trans fats. Despite exaggerated claims from some industry folks, your favorite foods and restaurants will continue to exist with nearly identical tastes at similar prices. The biggest difference will be that your cholesterol level will be lower and all Americans will have a greater chance of being a little healthier.
It was only a few short decades ago that trans fats became an important part of the American diet. We were all informed that trans fats are significantly better than the dreaded saturated fat and might actually be good for us like polyunsaturated fats. Quickly, our society adapted recipes and our way of life to promote this new miracle substance only to learn that transfats are FAR worse for our cholesterol levels than evil saturated fats could be in their wildest dreams.
Fortunately, members of the public (like Oprah and that guy from Supersize Me) have started to realize the danger of eating poisons like partially hydrogenated corn oil and have called for it to be removed from our diets. Even more fortunately, the private sector has responded! After NYC started talking about banning the substance, many corporate foodservice providers like Starbucks and Kentucky Fried Chicken started removing trans fat from their recipes without any noticeable change in the taste of their products. In fact, if these corporations hadn't been on a massive advertising blitz to tell you that their food is healthier now, there wouldn't have been any noticeable change at all!
Yet many still complain that the government shouldn't require the private sector to remove partially hydrogenated oils from their foods. I would be inclined to agree if the average person out understood how human nutrition works, that trans fats are essentially a poison, and that most of us are eating toxic levels of it regularly. As such, we should limit the use of trans fats in foods just as we limit the use of arsenic, lead, and other dangerous substances in our foods.
SPANKING
A friend of mine recently argued with me that Americans have a right to raise children in the way that we want. I asked him to show me where that right is listed in the Constitution.
The truth is that the right to privacy that the Supreme Court has read into the Bill of Rights does not grant us the right to cause harm to others. If it did, all laws preventing people from causing harm to others would be unconstitutional!
The spanking bill that Lieber unveiled would prevent adults from spanking children under the age of three. While I would suggest that the age limit might be more fitting at two years of age, it is important to note that children do not ever have the mental capacity to comprehend the reason they are being physically punished at extremely young ages.
While Republicans argue that the Nanny State government is over-reaching its boundaries in telling parents how they can and can't raise their children, it is a fact that any time an adult strikes an infant with the intent to cause pain it should be considered child abuse. Likewise, children too young to understand the reason they are being physically punished should be struck by an adult as punishment. Those who oppose the ban on spanking are focusing on the privileges of parents but are neglecting the rights children.
Certainly, I agree that responsible adults should be able to parent in whatever way they see fit, however they should be prevented from causing harm to their children. The government has the indisputed authority to punish parents that attempt to kill, poison, or otherwise abuse their children. However, social customs have allowed parents to strike their children even though psychologists have proven that the extremely young are only harmed by the practice.
CONCLUSION
As a general rule, I think that the Nanny State still sucks and Big Brother watches us too closely. Still, I think it is worse that Americans are abusing their children and poisoning themselves because almost worth eating contains trans fats. Sure, spanking isn't as bad as locking a child into a cage nor are trans fats quite as deadly as cyanide. Still, both should be legislated against as soon as possible. Most of us won't even know the difference!
Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed Universal Health Care. Assemblymember Sally Lieber has proposed an anti-spanking bill. No fewer than five California legislators are attempting to ban trans fats.
Republicans, as usual, are crying foul and claiming that Big Brother is going to mess things up. As a general rule, I agree with the idea that the Government should allow the private sector to fix problems and allow maximum personal liberty. In my mind, the government is only responsible to protect the rights and property of the people and entities it serves.
But I disagree with the mainstream Republican line on these issues. I have recently posted on Healthcare, so I will focus primarily on transfats and spanking today.
TRANS FAT
Following the lead of New York City and the advice of nutritionists everywhere, California may decide to ban or limit the use of trans fat in prepared foods in the near future. Despite the tasty goodness that trans fats can lend to many delicious fried foods, I couldn't be happier!
Imagine a world without trans fats. Despite exaggerated claims from some industry folks, your favorite foods and restaurants will continue to exist with nearly identical tastes at similar prices. The biggest difference will be that your cholesterol level will be lower and all Americans will have a greater chance of being a little healthier.
It was only a few short decades ago that trans fats became an important part of the American diet. We were all informed that trans fats are significantly better than the dreaded saturated fat and might actually be good for us like polyunsaturated fats. Quickly, our society adapted recipes and our way of life to promote this new miracle substance only to learn that transfats are FAR worse for our cholesterol levels than evil saturated fats could be in their wildest dreams.
Fortunately, members of the public (like Oprah and that guy from Supersize Me) have started to realize the danger of eating poisons like partially hydrogenated corn oil and have called for it to be removed from our diets. Even more fortunately, the private sector has responded! After NYC started talking about banning the substance, many corporate foodservice providers like Starbucks and Kentucky Fried Chicken started removing trans fat from their recipes without any noticeable change in the taste of their products. In fact, if these corporations hadn't been on a massive advertising blitz to tell you that their food is healthier now, there wouldn't have been any noticeable change at all!
Yet many still complain that the government shouldn't require the private sector to remove partially hydrogenated oils from their foods. I would be inclined to agree if the average person out understood how human nutrition works, that trans fats are essentially a poison, and that most of us are eating toxic levels of it regularly. As such, we should limit the use of trans fats in foods just as we limit the use of arsenic, lead, and other dangerous substances in our foods.
SPANKING
A friend of mine recently argued with me that Americans have a right to raise children in the way that we want. I asked him to show me where that right is listed in the Constitution.
The truth is that the right to privacy that the Supreme Court has read into the Bill of Rights does not grant us the right to cause harm to others. If it did, all laws preventing people from causing harm to others would be unconstitutional!
The spanking bill that Lieber unveiled would prevent adults from spanking children under the age of three. While I would suggest that the age limit might be more fitting at two years of age, it is important to note that children do not ever have the mental capacity to comprehend the reason they are being physically punished at extremely young ages.
While Republicans argue that the Nanny State government is over-reaching its boundaries in telling parents how they can and can't raise their children, it is a fact that any time an adult strikes an infant with the intent to cause pain it should be considered child abuse. Likewise, children too young to understand the reason they are being physically punished should be struck by an adult as punishment. Those who oppose the ban on spanking are focusing on the privileges of parents but are neglecting the rights children.
Certainly, I agree that responsible adults should be able to parent in whatever way they see fit, however they should be prevented from causing harm to their children. The government has the indisputed authority to punish parents that attempt to kill, poison, or otherwise abuse their children. However, social customs have allowed parents to strike their children even though psychologists have proven that the extremely young are only harmed by the practice.
CONCLUSION
As a general rule, I think that the Nanny State still sucks and Big Brother watches us too closely. Still, I think it is worse that Americans are abusing their children and poisoning themselves because almost worth eating contains trans fats. Sure, spanking isn't as bad as locking a child into a cage nor are trans fats quite as deadly as cyanide. Still, both should be legislated against as soon as possible. Most of us won't even know the difference!
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Post-Partisan Depression
Matt Cunningham at the Red State OC Blog posted a very short video clip of Todd Spitzer accepting the Legislator of the Year award from the Republican Party of Orange County.
While it is totally unremarkable that Spitzer got the award (he is an excellent legislator, a Moderate, a Republican, from Orange County, and helped to spearhead the criminal justice reforms we saw last year especially in regards to sex offenders), his acceptance speech is notable. Specifically, Spitzer speaks briefly on the Governor's inaugural address in which he called for Post-Partisanship.
Spitzer seems to agree that we all need to work together. He has definitely had a history of working across the party line and some consider him to have straddled it too closely on occasion. Nonetheless, the moderate Assemblyman pandered to his GOP supporters by explaining that the reason for all the successes California has seen can be credited to the hard work of the party.
This highlights the subject of some of my earlier posts regarding the reason that the California GOP is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Instead of proclaiming how far right they are, California's Republican legislators should be following Arnold a little more closely. Schwarzenegger has popularity because he is a centrist, moderate, post-partisan Republican. Most GOP candidates are unpopular because they are perceived as right-wing nuts. I would have expected Spitzer to recognize this as he has modeled himself as a thoughtful, right-leaning centrist and gained enormous popularity in his district for doing so.
While it is totally unremarkable that Spitzer got the award (he is an excellent legislator, a Moderate, a Republican, from Orange County, and helped to spearhead the criminal justice reforms we saw last year especially in regards to sex offenders), his acceptance speech is notable. Specifically, Spitzer speaks briefly on the Governor's inaugural address in which he called for Post-Partisanship.
Spitzer seems to agree that we all need to work together. He has definitely had a history of working across the party line and some consider him to have straddled it too closely on occasion. Nonetheless, the moderate Assemblyman pandered to his GOP supporters by explaining that the reason for all the successes California has seen can be credited to the hard work of the party.
This highlights the subject of some of my earlier posts regarding the reason that the California GOP is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Instead of proclaiming how far right they are, California's Republican legislators should be following Arnold a little more closely. Schwarzenegger has popularity because he is a centrist, moderate, post-partisan Republican. Most GOP candidates are unpopular because they are perceived as right-wing nuts. I would have expected Spitzer to recognize this as he has modeled himself as a thoughtful, right-leaning centrist and gained enormous popularity in his district for doing so.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
State of the Party
With the California Republican Party Convention in Sacramento just over 3 weeks away, I want to start examining the future of the California GOP.
Clearly, California has some definite Republican strongholds. Large swaths of the less urban areas of Southern California, Central California, and rural Northern California are conservative bastions and are unlikely to change voting patterns. Urban areas including SF and LA are strongly liberal areas that are unlikely to ever support GOP candidates. Though California has voted Blue in several past elections, I have already explained that I consider it to be a Purple state that could vote Republican under the right circumstances. Remember that our Governor is the infamous Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.
Governor Schwarzenegger has come to the same realization that I have: most Californians are not in favor of government regulation in their personal lives nor are they socially conservative. Also, people in this state tend to favor certain "liberal" policies including developing infrastructure and protecting the environment, especially if both can be done with a minimum impact on their own lives and business.
Unfortunately, the GOP has not yet come to this same realization. Founder and Editor of the FlashReport, Jon Fleishman penned a post on his views on the GOP's shortcomings recently. In it he pointed specifically GOP members of Congress becoming addicted to spending as a reason for their loss. While I agree that it certainly made them worse members of Congress and did contribute to their loss, I contend that a bigger factor was the inability of GOP members to keep themselves from meddling in the everyday lives of Americans and keep themselves out of scandal.
In California, the Republican minority in the state legislature has grown increasingly irrelevant. The only Republican sponsored bills that are passed are either totally innocuous or are parts of deals to get budget bills (and other bills that require a 2/3 supermajority) to pass. The rest of the year, it really doesn't matter what most Republicans say (unless, of course, that Republican is the Governator). Most GOP members of the Legislature hem and haw so loudly and obnoxiously that it is hard to take them seriously. Indeed, sometimes the Assembly floor has slightly resembled the British Parliament questioning the Prime Minister, with the minority party becoming insulting to the majority.
However, it need not be this way. Not long ago, Republicans were able to enjoy a majority in the Legislature. We were once relevant in California outside the Governor's Horseshoe.
What was different then was that the GOP molded itself to fit into the mainstream of political thought among voters. Without a doubt, the GOP still fell a little to the right of public opinion. However, the party continually attempted to capture the median voter both statewide and in many local districts. In those days, such people as Governor Pete Wilson, a moderate pro-choice Republican, not only was elected but maintained the support of the party and many swing voters.
Today, a moderate pro-choice Republican by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger has managed to capture the support of 63% of the state but has been practically abandoned by the party. One would expect that a popular Republican governor in a Democratic state that proposes moderate, proactive solutions would receive support from his party when he proposes landmark legislation like healthcare. Apparently, not so.
What the California Republican Party needs are leaders who are willing to step away from socially conservative notions that are out of touch with California voters. These leaders should work with the Governor and champion traditionally liberal causes in a uniquely Republican way that promotes personal liberty, small government, and free market principles.
Soon, I look forward to reviewing some of the candidates that are running for offices within the California GOP. Nominations have not yet closed and I only know of a handful of people running for party offices. If any of you are running or know of a candidate I would be interested in (either positively or negatively) please let me know!
Clearly, California has some definite Republican strongholds. Large swaths of the less urban areas of Southern California, Central California, and rural Northern California are conservative bastions and are unlikely to change voting patterns. Urban areas including SF and LA are strongly liberal areas that are unlikely to ever support GOP candidates. Though California has voted Blue in several past elections, I have already explained that I consider it to be a Purple state that could vote Republican under the right circumstances. Remember that our Governor is the infamous Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.
Governor Schwarzenegger has come to the same realization that I have: most Californians are not in favor of government regulation in their personal lives nor are they socially conservative. Also, people in this state tend to favor certain "liberal" policies including developing infrastructure and protecting the environment, especially if both can be done with a minimum impact on their own lives and business.
Unfortunately, the GOP has not yet come to this same realization. Founder and Editor of the FlashReport, Jon Fleishman penned a post on his views on the GOP's shortcomings recently. In it he pointed specifically GOP members of Congress becoming addicted to spending as a reason for their loss. While I agree that it certainly made them worse members of Congress and did contribute to their loss, I contend that a bigger factor was the inability of GOP members to keep themselves from meddling in the everyday lives of Americans and keep themselves out of scandal.
In California, the Republican minority in the state legislature has grown increasingly irrelevant. The only Republican sponsored bills that are passed are either totally innocuous or are parts of deals to get budget bills (and other bills that require a 2/3 supermajority) to pass. The rest of the year, it really doesn't matter what most Republicans say (unless, of course, that Republican is the Governator). Most GOP members of the Legislature hem and haw so loudly and obnoxiously that it is hard to take them seriously. Indeed, sometimes the Assembly floor has slightly resembled the British Parliament questioning the Prime Minister, with the minority party becoming insulting to the majority.
However, it need not be this way. Not long ago, Republicans were able to enjoy a majority in the Legislature. We were once relevant in California outside the Governor's Horseshoe.
What was different then was that the GOP molded itself to fit into the mainstream of political thought among voters. Without a doubt, the GOP still fell a little to the right of public opinion. However, the party continually attempted to capture the median voter both statewide and in many local districts. In those days, such people as Governor Pete Wilson, a moderate pro-choice Republican, not only was elected but maintained the support of the party and many swing voters.
Today, a moderate pro-choice Republican by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger has managed to capture the support of 63% of the state but has been practically abandoned by the party. One would expect that a popular Republican governor in a Democratic state that proposes moderate, proactive solutions would receive support from his party when he proposes landmark legislation like healthcare. Apparently, not so.
What the California Republican Party needs are leaders who are willing to step away from socially conservative notions that are out of touch with California voters. These leaders should work with the Governor and champion traditionally liberal causes in a uniquely Republican way that promotes personal liberty, small government, and free market principles.
Soon, I look forward to reviewing some of the candidates that are running for offices within the California GOP. Nominations have not yet closed and I only know of a handful of people running for party offices. If any of you are running or know of a candidate I would be interested in (either positively or negatively) please let me know!
Monday, January 08, 2007
Universal Healthcare in California
After spending some time in a Idaho hospital after a holiday ski accident, the Governor has unveiled his new healthcare plan for all Californians.
Eat your heart out, Hillary! This plan actually as a chance of becoming reality!
According to the plan, all Californians will be required to maintain health insurance. This would serve to reduce emergency care costs for the uninsured that hospitals currently must “eat” and eventually pass along to insured and paying patients. The governor has likened this to a hidden tax. This would also improve the public health by encouraging early treatment and maintenance care of ailments-typically much cheaper and effective than late treatment and emergency care.
More controversially, the plan will require all business with 10 or more employees to offer insurance or pay at least 4% of their payroll to help pay for their employees’ health coverage. Additionally, this plan would require insurance companies to guarantee individuals coverage in the individual market and spend 85% of every premium dollar on patient care.
There is certainly a need for healthcare coverage in California and too small of a percentage of our population currently are able to maintain coverage. Market forces have kept adequate coverage out of the hands of many who need it and want it. Because insurance companies frequently no longer offer individual plans in California, insurance is impossible for many people to obtain.
Further, because California emergency rooms must provide services to individuals without regard of their ability to pay, all Californians must carry the burden. Those that are unable to pay are also unable to obtain preventative care or treatment for most ailments until they find themselves in emergency rooms. The costs at that point are much higher and the chances of successfully treating the ailment are significantly lower. Given that we are already paying a high cost for medical care for those that cannot pay for themselves, I would much rather my dollars be used more efficiently and effectively.
All of this analysis comes without a dollar sign attached to it, so far. As far as I can tell, the Governor has not announced how much his plan is going to cost taxpayers or where the money will come from. All Californians will be required to carry insurance now and this could cause some difficult questions of enforcement and, in an unlikely worst-case scenario, could potentially lead to chronic overcrowding in hospitals. While the Governor has enjoyed a remarkable record with the economy, requiring all companies to offer health benefits could be detrimental to many small businesses. Not to mention, we have no idea what this would do to preexisting health benefits and insurance premiums.
We know what the ends are (and the ends are good!), but we don’t yet know the means by which the Governor wants to implement these plans. Will the ends justify the means?
Eat your heart out, Hillary! This plan actually as a chance of becoming reality!
According to the plan, all Californians will be required to maintain health insurance. This would serve to reduce emergency care costs for the uninsured that hospitals currently must “eat” and eventually pass along to insured and paying patients. The governor has likened this to a hidden tax. This would also improve the public health by encouraging early treatment and maintenance care of ailments-typically much cheaper and effective than late treatment and emergency care.
More controversially, the plan will require all business with 10 or more employees to offer insurance or pay at least 4% of their payroll to help pay for their employees’ health coverage. Additionally, this plan would require insurance companies to guarantee individuals coverage in the individual market and spend 85% of every premium dollar on patient care.
There is certainly a need for healthcare coverage in California and too small of a percentage of our population currently are able to maintain coverage. Market forces have kept adequate coverage out of the hands of many who need it and want it. Because insurance companies frequently no longer offer individual plans in California, insurance is impossible for many people to obtain.
Further, because California emergency rooms must provide services to individuals without regard of their ability to pay, all Californians must carry the burden. Those that are unable to pay are also unable to obtain preventative care or treatment for most ailments until they find themselves in emergency rooms. The costs at that point are much higher and the chances of successfully treating the ailment are significantly lower. Given that we are already paying a high cost for medical care for those that cannot pay for themselves, I would much rather my dollars be used more efficiently and effectively.
All of this analysis comes without a dollar sign attached to it, so far. As far as I can tell, the Governor has not announced how much his plan is going to cost taxpayers or where the money will come from. All Californians will be required to carry insurance now and this could cause some difficult questions of enforcement and, in an unlikely worst-case scenario, could potentially lead to chronic overcrowding in hospitals. While the Governor has enjoyed a remarkable record with the economy, requiring all companies to offer health benefits could be detrimental to many small businesses. Not to mention, we have no idea what this would do to preexisting health benefits and insurance premiums.
We know what the ends are (and the ends are good!), but we don’t yet know the means by which the Governor wants to implement these plans. Will the ends justify the means?
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Governor Declares War on GOP
Not only has California left the United States under the leadership of Governor Schwarzenegger, war has been declared on the Republican Party.
Thanks to a tip from a San Francisco Democrat friend of mine, I have come across a Time Magazine article claiming that Governor Schwarzenegger is in a war with the Republican party in California. Given the sentiment of many Republicans I know that listened to the inauguration speech this week, I expect this to be a common theme in articles written about the Governator in the next few weeks.
I have already posted about the Governor’s speech and his centrist, “post-partisan” agenda for his second term. Many Republicans (read: the old boys network including such figures as Mike Spence from the California Republican Assembly) are already condemning the Governor’s speech. Their argument is that this new post-partisan agenda seems to look an awful like the Democratic agenda and nothing like the Republican agenda. They believe that the Governor plans to make a number of Big Government, anti-business moves that will increase spending and require taxation. They also promise a fight against the Governor and his administration if these new policies come to the Legislature.
But this fight might be exactly what the Governor is looking for. According to my favorite Berkeley instructor (who I will henceforth call a professor out of respect, though he does not technically hold that title) Professor Dan Schnur, the governor could really benefit from some Republican opposition. Prof Schnur, who is a moderate Republican strategist, says that when Arnold runs for Senate in 4 or 6 years, “The more the conservatives do to push back at him, the more moderate he will look by comparison. As long as he doesn't raise taxes it's difficult to see a conservative candidate beating him in a primary, which means he's free to situate himself right at the political center."
Thanks to a tip from a San Francisco Democrat friend of mine, I have come across a Time Magazine article claiming that Governor Schwarzenegger is in a war with the Republican party in California. Given the sentiment of many Republicans I know that listened to the inauguration speech this week, I expect this to be a common theme in articles written about the Governator in the next few weeks.
I have already posted about the Governor’s speech and his centrist, “post-partisan” agenda for his second term. Many Republicans (read: the old boys network including such figures as Mike Spence from the California Republican Assembly) are already condemning the Governor’s speech. Their argument is that this new post-partisan agenda seems to look an awful like the Democratic agenda and nothing like the Republican agenda. They believe that the Governor plans to make a number of Big Government, anti-business moves that will increase spending and require taxation. They also promise a fight against the Governor and his administration if these new policies come to the Legislature.
But this fight might be exactly what the Governor is looking for. According to my favorite Berkeley instructor (who I will henceforth call a professor out of respect, though he does not technically hold that title) Professor Dan Schnur, the governor could really benefit from some Republican opposition. Prof Schnur, who is a moderate Republican strategist, says that when Arnold runs for Senate in 4 or 6 years, “The more the conservatives do to push back at him, the more moderate he will look by comparison. As long as he doesn't raise taxes it's difficult to see a conservative candidate beating him in a primary, which means he's free to situate himself right at the political center."
Friday, January 05, 2007
California Secedes From Union, Declares War on USA
Governor Schwarzenegger was sworn in today amidst much fanfare. By now, anybody who reads about politics would have already heard about the Governor’s speech applauding centrism in bringing the state forward. But what you might not have heard is that the Governor renounced parties and declared war on the United States after California’s secession from the Union. Well, maybe not quite.
But the Governor did declare that California is a nation-state. Indeed, we have a very diverse population but well defined cultural identity. Additionally, we are an important world economy and power in our own right. We are even trying to fashion ourselves a world leader in environmental progress. Stated by the Governor in his inaugural speech while surrounded by members of the California National Guard (which he commands), this could very well be considered an act of secession. Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger found a way around the constitutional provisions preventing his election to the presidency—he declared himself the chief executive of his own nation! GO GOVERNATOR!
The Governor also promoted “Post-Partisanism” a new term he coined to reflect what he hopes to achieve in this new nation—an end to parties, once and for all. No longer does he intend to act in a bipartisan manner; he wishes to run a California where a partisan label on issues doesn’t drive or kill a measure. That is, the Governor wants to promote issues that Californians want, need, and elected him to secure (namely: prison reform, healthcare, and environmental reform) without the Republicans or Democrats pulling party lines because the issue has been historically Democrat or Republican led (in these cases, Democrat led). As the Gov said, “We don’t need Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air.”
Not that any of this should really be news. Governor Schwarzenegger is hardly a partisan and has long stated his disdain for partisan politics. His views on the environment and healthcare are well-documented. Nobody should be surprised by his views today. Today’s speech, was however, a refreshingly inspiring look into the mind of the popular Governor. I may post the transcript of the speech in its entirety later. Or maybe not.
In other news: Maria Shriver looked too thin. Patrick Schwarzenegger needs a haircut, badly. Eunice Shriver looked fabulous. Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who as usual, was impeccably dressed in a well-tailored suit with a lavender tie needed more stylish crutches. The set he was using were plain, grey, aluminum crutches that appeared to be issued by the hospital. Perhaps he should find a more stylish set with modern appearance or an ergonomic design. That would be cool.
But the Governor did declare that California is a nation-state. Indeed, we have a very diverse population but well defined cultural identity. Additionally, we are an important world economy and power in our own right. We are even trying to fashion ourselves a world leader in environmental progress. Stated by the Governor in his inaugural speech while surrounded by members of the California National Guard (which he commands), this could very well be considered an act of secession. Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger found a way around the constitutional provisions preventing his election to the presidency—he declared himself the chief executive of his own nation! GO GOVERNATOR!
The Governor also promoted “Post-Partisanism” a new term he coined to reflect what he hopes to achieve in this new nation—an end to parties, once and for all. No longer does he intend to act in a bipartisan manner; he wishes to run a California where a partisan label on issues doesn’t drive or kill a measure. That is, the Governor wants to promote issues that Californians want, need, and elected him to secure (namely: prison reform, healthcare, and environmental reform) without the Republicans or Democrats pulling party lines because the issue has been historically Democrat or Republican led (in these cases, Democrat led). As the Gov said, “We don’t need Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air.”
Not that any of this should really be news. Governor Schwarzenegger is hardly a partisan and has long stated his disdain for partisan politics. His views on the environment and healthcare are well-documented. Nobody should be surprised by his views today. Today’s speech, was however, a refreshingly inspiring look into the mind of the popular Governor. I may post the transcript of the speech in its entirety later. Or maybe not.
In other news: Maria Shriver looked too thin. Patrick Schwarzenegger needs a haircut, badly. Eunice Shriver looked fabulous. Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who as usual, was impeccably dressed in a well-tailored suit with a lavender tie needed more stylish crutches. The set he was using were plain, grey, aluminum crutches that appeared to be issued by the hospital. Perhaps he should find a more stylish set with modern appearance or an ergonomic design. That would be cool.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
The California Legislature Reconvened!
Then they promptly went home. Nobody noticed. Really, the only reason they are all in town is to go to the Governor's star-studded inauguration tomorrow.
The inauguration already seems a bit disappointing. Given Ahnold's own star power, one would expect high caliber celebrities to perform. While rumor has it Danny DeVito will be at the party (maybe sober, maybe not) it has been confirmed that Donna Summer and Paul Anka will be the musical entertainment at the Inaugural Gala and the event will be hosted by former Speaker of the House Willie Brown.
In all seriousness, the California Legislature isn't really covering anything right now except an esoteric argument over a particular labor-owned education appointee that needs to be reappointed. The Republicans don't like him but neither does that particular council like Republicans. Governor Schwarzenegger nominated him again anyway. If the vote goes down the party lines, Dems only need to capture a couple of GOP votes to secure his reappointment. And nothing will change.
The inauguration already seems a bit disappointing. Given Ahnold's own star power, one would expect high caliber celebrities to perform. While rumor has it Danny DeVito will be at the party (maybe sober, maybe not) it has been confirmed that Donna Summer and Paul Anka will be the musical entertainment at the Inaugural Gala and the event will be hosted by former Speaker of the House Willie Brown.
In all seriousness, the California Legislature isn't really covering anything right now except an esoteric argument over a particular labor-owned education appointee that needs to be reappointed. The Republicans don't like him but neither does that particular council like Republicans. Governor Schwarzenegger nominated him again anyway. If the vote goes down the party lines, Dems only need to capture a couple of GOP votes to secure his reappointment. And nothing will change.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
The GOP Still Not Catching On
Republicans in California still don’t look like they are getting it through their heads what will make them more popular. The new session doesn’t even start until next week, but each week it looks like the GOP caucus in each house is moving further right than they already were.
In the Assembly two weeks ago, Republicans voted down Plescia as Minority Leader because he was seen a too conciliatory. Indeed, he was pragmatic and understood that the only way to remain relevant in what appears to be a nearly permanent minority position is to bargain with the majority party. As a result, there was significant give-and-take in the budgeting process, a budget was passed on time, the legislature was seen as being the most productive in decades, and the big winner was the Governor.
To replace Plescia, Republicans tapped Mike Villines of Clovis—a hard-line Republican most recently known for his fierce opposition to the budget and bonds. The GOP would have been hard pressed to find a party leader less bipartisan than Mr. Villines, who will almost certainly try to use his position to attack the wildly popular Republican (perhaps the ONLY wildly popular Republican left in the USA) Governor’s position on a number of issues that GOP leadership might see as un-Republican.
In the Senate, incumbent Minority Leader Dick Ackerman isn’t sitting too comfortably on his thrown. Reportedly, he hasn’t been able to secure enough votes to guarantee his reelection to the post, although he has more votes than Jim Battin, his main challenger. This could potentially lead to a compromise candidate—which might not be too bad.
Unfortunately, in order to be reelected, Ackerman has promised to take a harder stance on budget issues. That is, he wants to oppose the Governor’s pragmatic and centrist attempts to form a budget that serves the needs of Californians while simultaneously reducing wasteful spending. In the process, it appears he will be throwing away his good working relationship with Democratic leader Don Perata.
The problem with all this is that the GOP hasn’t figured out why nobody in California likes them and how the Governator became so popular (even though EVERYBODY hated him a year ago). It wasn’t bad spending, poor Republican turnout, or just Bush’s coattails that have led to the Blue Wave. Governor Schwarzenegger has mastered the technique of giving voters what they want.
An old professor of mine once explained that all voters want three things and that anybody who can figure out how to give all three will win every election: 1. Lower taxes, 2. More government services, 3. a balanced budget. While we all know it is impossible to give all of these all of the time, Governor Schwarzenegger has done extremely well by keeping taxes down (he hasn’t raised taxes), keeping services high (and proposing new popular public services regarding the environment and healthcare), and paying down the state’s debt.
The GOP could easily catch on to his strategy and ride it to further victories, but have chosen to fall into irrelevancy instead.
In the Assembly two weeks ago, Republicans voted down Plescia as Minority Leader because he was seen a too conciliatory. Indeed, he was pragmatic and understood that the only way to remain relevant in what appears to be a nearly permanent minority position is to bargain with the majority party. As a result, there was significant give-and-take in the budgeting process, a budget was passed on time, the legislature was seen as being the most productive in decades, and the big winner was the Governor.
To replace Plescia, Republicans tapped Mike Villines of Clovis—a hard-line Republican most recently known for his fierce opposition to the budget and bonds. The GOP would have been hard pressed to find a party leader less bipartisan than Mr. Villines, who will almost certainly try to use his position to attack the wildly popular Republican (perhaps the ONLY wildly popular Republican left in the USA) Governor’s position on a number of issues that GOP leadership might see as un-Republican.
In the Senate, incumbent Minority Leader Dick Ackerman isn’t sitting too comfortably on his thrown. Reportedly, he hasn’t been able to secure enough votes to guarantee his reelection to the post, although he has more votes than Jim Battin, his main challenger. This could potentially lead to a compromise candidate—which might not be too bad.
Unfortunately, in order to be reelected, Ackerman has promised to take a harder stance on budget issues. That is, he wants to oppose the Governor’s pragmatic and centrist attempts to form a budget that serves the needs of Californians while simultaneously reducing wasteful spending. In the process, it appears he will be throwing away his good working relationship with Democratic leader Don Perata.
The problem with all this is that the GOP hasn’t figured out why nobody in California likes them and how the Governator became so popular (even though EVERYBODY hated him a year ago). It wasn’t bad spending, poor Republican turnout, or just Bush’s coattails that have led to the Blue Wave. Governor Schwarzenegger has mastered the technique of giving voters what they want.
An old professor of mine once explained that all voters want three things and that anybody who can figure out how to give all three will win every election: 1. Lower taxes, 2. More government services, 3. a balanced budget. While we all know it is impossible to give all of these all of the time, Governor Schwarzenegger has done extremely well by keeping taxes down (he hasn’t raised taxes), keeping services high (and proposing new popular public services regarding the environment and healthcare), and paying down the state’s debt.
The GOP could easily catch on to his strategy and ride it to further victories, but have chosen to fall into irrelevancy instead.
Friday, November 17, 2006
The One-Eyed, One-Horned Flying Purple Moderate Voter of California?
A commenter on an earlier post of mine commented that:
Why is it that California thought Arnold would do the best job as Governor? He certainly wouldn’t have won the election by such a large margin if he had campaigned on star power alone. The reason is that he is reasonably in line with what most Californians are looking for, politically. This is the same reason Dianne Feinstein remains such a popular figure here. Both are political moderates that lean left socially and lean right economically.
California tends to vote Democrat because voters are left little other option. The California Republican Party is too conservative for voters. Economically, the state is moderate to right. Socially, the state is moderate to left. For the record, both of these generalizations are on the whole of the state.
My point is that because the California Republican Party keeps putting up such conservative candidates, Californians won't vote for them. The Democrats are not highly favored in this state, either. Economically, few are really in line with the sentiments of voters. However, outside of political blogs, academic settings, and financial institutions, who considers fiscal matters sexy? People can get riled up over social issues.
If the California Republican Party downplayed the social issues or moved a little left on them, it could gain a lot of power in statewide races. Local districts are very gerrymandered and it would take a whole new strategy for Republicans to win a majority in the California Congressional Delegation, the Assembly, or the state Senate. But that doesn’t mean California is Blue.
This election (and others before it) show that the median voter theorem is heavily at work in California. For statewide office, voters prefer a moderate candidate that is neither socially conservative nor economically liberal. This is why moderate Arnold handily beat tax-hiker Angelides. This is why moderate Democrat DiFi beats just about everybody. This is why pro-choice Pete Wilson won so often.
California’s median voter isn’t to be found in the San Francisco Bay Area or in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area any more than it is to be found in the Fresno/Clovis area. He (or she) is a strong moderate looking a little like Ahnold and DiFi.
Shane, my point is that California voted Dem this year because it had little other choice. I still maintain that it is a Purple state because that is where it would fall on a Red-to-Blue spectrum.California isn't purple, it's Blue. I'm a Democrat and I voted for the Repub. candidates for governor and for insurance commissioner because I thought they would do the best job. I'd caution you not to read too much into the election, especially as any kind of an endorsement of the Republican party. As you said earlier the California Republican Party is still way too conservative for most Californians, including me. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Why is it that California thought Arnold would do the best job as Governor? He certainly wouldn’t have won the election by such a large margin if he had campaigned on star power alone. The reason is that he is reasonably in line with what most Californians are looking for, politically. This is the same reason Dianne Feinstein remains such a popular figure here. Both are political moderates that lean left socially and lean right economically.
California tends to vote Democrat because voters are left little other option. The California Republican Party is too conservative for voters. Economically, the state is moderate to right. Socially, the state is moderate to left. For the record, both of these generalizations are on the whole of the state.
My point is that because the California Republican Party keeps putting up such conservative candidates, Californians won't vote for them. The Democrats are not highly favored in this state, either. Economically, few are really in line with the sentiments of voters. However, outside of political blogs, academic settings, and financial institutions, who considers fiscal matters sexy? People can get riled up over social issues.
If the California Republican Party downplayed the social issues or moved a little left on them, it could gain a lot of power in statewide races. Local districts are very gerrymandered and it would take a whole new strategy for Republicans to win a majority in the California Congressional Delegation, the Assembly, or the state Senate. But that doesn’t mean California is Blue.
This election (and others before it) show that the median voter theorem is heavily at work in California. For statewide office, voters prefer a moderate candidate that is neither socially conservative nor economically liberal. This is why moderate Arnold handily beat tax-hiker Angelides. This is why moderate Democrat DiFi beats just about everybody. This is why pro-choice Pete Wilson won so often.
California’s median voter isn’t to be found in the San Francisco Bay Area or in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area any more than it is to be found in the Fresno/Clovis area. He (or she) is a strong moderate looking a little like Ahnold and DiFi.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Cause Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut...
Boi from Troy posted that Mike Spence, head of the uber-conservative California Republican Assembly wants to audit the California Republican Party. Spence seems to claim that with the millions and millions of dollars spent, we shouldn’t have lost.
Over at FlashReport, Spence gave his views:
Except of course for what the real problem was.
He placed no blame on the far right of our party for alienating voters. California voters are not excited by right-wingers like Dennis Mountjoy, Mike Spence, Dick Mountjoy, and the like who grandstand and give our party at bad name. Chuck Poochigian, Tony Strickland, Tom McClintock, and Claude Parrish are all too conservative for our state.
If the California Republican Party wants to succeed, it must take a page from Schwarzenegger's playbook. It must learn that California wants to embrace economically conservative candidates so long as they are socially moderate.
Instead of auditing CRP and blaming them for the great loss, we should be dumping people like Spence as fast as we can.
Over at FlashReport, Spence gave his views:
Was Victory '06 a success? After over 20 million dollars spent that is an open question for me. I have my doubts. The Governor was on the way to victory long before the GOTV operation was needed. Maybe Poizner benefited. Although he really benifited from Bustamante.Then, Spence goes on to blame the National GOP collapse, the Governor for not extending his coattails further, and a lack of enough GOTV efforts by the party. In fact, he does his best to place the blame on everybody and everything that went wrong.
First, I want to point out that I know something on this scale has not been tried before. I know many Victory '06 staffers. Many of them are great operatives. People can work hard and effectively in campaigns and still not achieve objectives. To be successful in the future requires us to take a hard look at some of these things.
I admit to only knowing a few things. Turnout in GOP areas was lower than four years ago. Imagine that. A "GOP" Governor is winning by 17% and turnout is worse than when we lose by 5%. What gives?
Except of course for what the real problem was.
He placed no blame on the far right of our party for alienating voters. California voters are not excited by right-wingers like Dennis Mountjoy, Mike Spence, Dick Mountjoy, and the like who grandstand and give our party at bad name. Chuck Poochigian, Tony Strickland, Tom McClintock, and Claude Parrish are all too conservative for our state.
If the California Republican Party wants to succeed, it must take a page from Schwarzenegger's playbook. It must learn that California wants to embrace economically conservative candidates so long as they are socially moderate.
Instead of auditing CRP and blaming them for the great loss, we should be dumping people like Spence as fast as we can.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
A Bad Year for the Roses
No, I am not talking about the Rose Bowl. My hopes are still high that Cal can pull a victory against the University of South Central this weekend. In fact, I will be blogging about that that at some point this week.
Today I am predicting another bad year for the Republicans. As everybody in politics knows, the campaign starts the day after the previous election, if not sooner. Why then are the Republicans already failing?
When the voters very clearly tell you that things need to change, it would be logical to change in the direction the voters intend. Not so, according to the choices currently being made in Sacramento and DC.
Republican members of the California Assembly look like they will soon replace George Plescia with even-more-conservative Mike Villines from the Fresno-Clovis area to be the new Assembly Minority Leader. True, Plescia was no strong leader for the GOP. Susan Kennedy referred to him looking like a deer stuck in the headlights and Governor Schwarzenegger expressed his concern that Plescia couldn’t control the “wild-bunch” of Republicans in the Assembly. Still it makes little sense to find a more conservative member to lead our party out of the current quagmire. At this rate, expect the California GOP to be even more irrelevant than it already is.
But it doesn’t seem the national party is any smarter. In the Senate, it looks like the minority leader will be Senator Mitch McConell, an anti-gay “Christianist” that votes a straight Republican ticket. That doesn’t sound like change to me, folks. Why don’t we see if we can find somebody closer to the status quo? Is Dick Cheney eligible for the post?
We can’t expect the foolhardy crowd in the House to provide our party with any good leadership, can we? The three favorite candidates to move into Pelosi’s old office when she becomes Speaker are John Boehner, Joe Barton, and Mike Pence. Boehner we can all remember from his role in the Foley scandal and cover-up where he may or may not have told Speaker Hastert what he knew about Foley’s indiscretions. Pence is an extreme conservative hoping to bring change to the GOP by being even more rightwing. Barton long spouted the necessity of traditional family values before his divorce in 2003 and marriage to another woman soon after. He has received extremely large contributions from energy companies while consistently denying the existence of global warming. When he seems to be the more moderate of the candidates for the job, the GOP is in trouble.
Unless the Republican Party wakes up and realizes it needs to change, it will continue to fall by the wayside. I expected the recent election to be a sufficient wakeup call, but apparently was wrong. What will it take to make the GOP move a little left?
Today I am predicting another bad year for the Republicans. As everybody in politics knows, the campaign starts the day after the previous election, if not sooner. Why then are the Republicans already failing?
When the voters very clearly tell you that things need to change, it would be logical to change in the direction the voters intend. Not so, according to the choices currently being made in Sacramento and DC.
Republican members of the California Assembly look like they will soon replace George Plescia with even-more-conservative Mike Villines from the Fresno-Clovis area to be the new Assembly Minority Leader. True, Plescia was no strong leader for the GOP. Susan Kennedy referred to him looking like a deer stuck in the headlights and Governor Schwarzenegger expressed his concern that Plescia couldn’t control the “wild-bunch” of Republicans in the Assembly. Still it makes little sense to find a more conservative member to lead our party out of the current quagmire. At this rate, expect the California GOP to be even more irrelevant than it already is.
But it doesn’t seem the national party is any smarter. In the Senate, it looks like the minority leader will be Senator Mitch McConell, an anti-gay “Christianist” that votes a straight Republican ticket. That doesn’t sound like change to me, folks. Why don’t we see if we can find somebody closer to the status quo? Is Dick Cheney eligible for the post?
We can’t expect the foolhardy crowd in the House to provide our party with any good leadership, can we? The three favorite candidates to move into Pelosi’s old office when she becomes Speaker are John Boehner, Joe Barton, and Mike Pence. Boehner we can all remember from his role in the Foley scandal and cover-up where he may or may not have told Speaker Hastert what he knew about Foley’s indiscretions. Pence is an extreme conservative hoping to bring change to the GOP by being even more rightwing. Barton long spouted the necessity of traditional family values before his divorce in 2003 and marriage to another woman soon after. He has received extremely large contributions from energy companies while consistently denying the existence of global warming. When he seems to be the more moderate of the candidates for the job, the GOP is in trouble.
Unless the Republican Party wakes up and realizes it needs to change, it will continue to fall by the wayside. I expected the recent election to be a sufficient wakeup call, but apparently was wrong. What will it take to make the GOP move a little left?
Monday, November 13, 2006
The Last of the Election Wrap-Up Posts
I believe this will be my last post that is simply an analysis of the November election. Really, I think we are all tired of hearing about what Speaker Pelosi will do and how the country has called for bipartisan efforts, change, blah blah, Iraq, blah, etc. So, my final analysis will focus on what the election means to California Republicans and Gays, but not necessarily on Republicans that happen to be Gay.
I have always maintained that California is NOT a blue state. It is impossible to imagine it as a red state, either. Really, Californians are purple but forced left. Similarly, Gays are not hard Democrats. Even Log Cabin Republicans like myself have a hard time voting Republican because of the anti-Gay rhetoric from the right. We are forced left.
But we already knew their was an association between Gays and purple.
California showed its purple nature last week. At the top of the ticket was a very independent minded Republican winning by a huge margin. With the exception of Steve Poizner, the rest of the statewide ballot was decidedly Blue.
I have already looked at what makes Schwarzenegger different. He and Poizner both are fiscally conservatives with a background that shows that they favor business interests in general. California prides itself on a strong economy based on a combination of agriculture, natural resources, and commerce.
But, you ask, weren’t Strickland, McClintock, and other Republicans on the ballot strong economic conservatives?
Yes they were! However, Poizner and Schwarzenegger successfully painted themselves as social moderates. It also didn’t hurt that Poizner ran against Cruz Bustamante, who nobody really likes.
Schwarzenegger, especially is moderate-to-left on many social issues. He follows the majority of Californians when he discusses Gay Rights, Environmental Policy, and Criminal Justice. His basic view seems to be that government shouldn’t interfere where it doesn’t need to but should step in to protect the rights and property of individuals when necessary.
This (small-L) libertarian sentiment can be seen in his stances all over the place. He is pro-Gay Rights in protecting our rights to economic and social liberty and justice. He is pro-environment because he sees a government necessity in protecting the environment as a public good, but not so pro-environment that it would significantly impede the rights and liberty of individuals or business to operate or do as they wish (within reason) on their own property.
Californians, clearly, tend to lean left on social issues. Except in rural areas and the Central Valley, Californians tend to favor liberal social issues. Statewide, Californians tend to favor moderate economic policies.
More so, Gays tend to be socially liberal. I have met very few members of the GLBT community that are not socially liberal. It is extremely difficult to identify as a social conservative if most of what you hear from the right is how you are an abomination and living a deviant lifestyle. That does not mean, however, that Gays necessarily really identify with the Democratic platforms. Many Gays are not as economically liberal as the Democrats would like.
Last week’s election is a grand opportunity for the California Republican Party to take a serious look at itself and decide whether it wants to remain relevant. By rewriting its platforms to focus primarily on conservative economic goals while remaining socially libertarian, the CRP can win back the state.
The greatest and most successful Republicans to come through the ranks of the California Republican Party include Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All three developed conservative economic policies while remaining socially moderate or libertarian. The policies of all three believed that the government that governs best is that which governs least.
If the California Republican Party rejected its current platform based primarily on conservative social issues, it would be in a far better position to recapture the votes of Californians. Further, it would be easier for Gays to vote Republican with a clear conscience (at least in California). Over time, this could lead to major reform nationally.
My hope is that the CRP will take a few minutes to look at the current state of affairs and recognize its own shortcomings. If it continues to serve as a bastion for social conservatives, it will continue to fall into obscurity in the state. If it learns to embrace the socially moderate views of its most successful members, perhaps it will have an opportunity to reform California while limiting the power of the tax-happy socialists disguised as Democrats in this state.
I have always maintained that California is NOT a blue state. It is impossible to imagine it as a red state, either. Really, Californians are purple but forced left. Similarly, Gays are not hard Democrats. Even Log Cabin Republicans like myself have a hard time voting Republican because of the anti-Gay rhetoric from the right. We are forced left.
But we already knew their was an association between Gays and purple.
California showed its purple nature last week. At the top of the ticket was a very independent minded Republican winning by a huge margin. With the exception of Steve Poizner, the rest of the statewide ballot was decidedly Blue.
I have already looked at what makes Schwarzenegger different. He and Poizner both are fiscally conservatives with a background that shows that they favor business interests in general. California prides itself on a strong economy based on a combination of agriculture, natural resources, and commerce.
But, you ask, weren’t Strickland, McClintock, and other Republicans on the ballot strong economic conservatives?
Yes they were! However, Poizner and Schwarzenegger successfully painted themselves as social moderates. It also didn’t hurt that Poizner ran against Cruz Bustamante, who nobody really likes.
Schwarzenegger, especially is moderate-to-left on many social issues. He follows the majority of Californians when he discusses Gay Rights, Environmental Policy, and Criminal Justice. His basic view seems to be that government shouldn’t interfere where it doesn’t need to but should step in to protect the rights and property of individuals when necessary.
This (small-L) libertarian sentiment can be seen in his stances all over the place. He is pro-Gay Rights in protecting our rights to economic and social liberty and justice. He is pro-environment because he sees a government necessity in protecting the environment as a public good, but not so pro-environment that it would significantly impede the rights and liberty of individuals or business to operate or do as they wish (within reason) on their own property.
Californians, clearly, tend to lean left on social issues. Except in rural areas and the Central Valley, Californians tend to favor liberal social issues. Statewide, Californians tend to favor moderate economic policies.
More so, Gays tend to be socially liberal. I have met very few members of the GLBT community that are not socially liberal. It is extremely difficult to identify as a social conservative if most of what you hear from the right is how you are an abomination and living a deviant lifestyle. That does not mean, however, that Gays necessarily really identify with the Democratic platforms. Many Gays are not as economically liberal as the Democrats would like.
Last week’s election is a grand opportunity for the California Republican Party to take a serious look at itself and decide whether it wants to remain relevant. By rewriting its platforms to focus primarily on conservative economic goals while remaining socially libertarian, the CRP can win back the state.
The greatest and most successful Republicans to come through the ranks of the California Republican Party include Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All three developed conservative economic policies while remaining socially moderate or libertarian. The policies of all three believed that the government that governs best is that which governs least.
If the California Republican Party rejected its current platform based primarily on conservative social issues, it would be in a far better position to recapture the votes of Californians. Further, it would be easier for Gays to vote Republican with a clear conscience (at least in California). Over time, this could lead to major reform nationally.
My hope is that the CRP will take a few minutes to look at the current state of affairs and recognize its own shortcomings. If it continues to serve as a bastion for social conservatives, it will continue to fall into obscurity in the state. If it learns to embrace the socially moderate views of its most successful members, perhaps it will have an opportunity to reform California while limiting the power of the tax-happy socialists disguised as Democrats in this state.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Hasta la Vista, Baby!
It is notable that in the sea of Republican losses last night there was a massive victory for a Republican in a well-known bastion of liberalism.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won re-election last night in a landslide victory.
It was hardly unexpected. For weeks (or months) now it has been very apparent that the Governator was going to win by a large margin. He is a seemingly unstoppable force in California politics right now, and is a Republican in a year where Republicans are getting slaughtered everywhere.
What is it about this legendary man that has given him the ability to win so handily? Can we apply his magic to the rest of our party?
The simplest answer is that he not a conservative but a moderate. Many Republicans have criticized him for ceasing to be a REAL Republican. While I don’t believe the Governor to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only). In fact, he has moved in a direction other Republicans should follow.
Governor Schwarzenegger is a pragmatic centrist. He maintains strict principles that he believes to be necessary for the growth of California’s economy. His social values are more in keeping with the “Small Government” tenets of the Republican philosophy than the Republican Party Platforms are. In reality, Governor Schwarzenegger is a better Republican than any other elected in California.
He won last night because the good people of California see him for what he has accomplished and attempted to accomplish in California. During the Recall Campaign, the Governor took his seat as an outsider loved by the state because he was not a seasoned politician, had glamour and celebrity, and was promising to lead in a way that was different. Throughout this campaign, the Governor promised to continue to lead in this unique way. Instead of guiding the state through the standard party lines, he has chosen a path right down the center aisle of the Legislature, knocking a few people out of the way as he goes.
Other politicians should learn from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s technique. The reason the GOP sustained such huge losses last night was because the people are generally tired of partisan gridlock and rhetoric. The Republicans that currently control the House, Senate, and Presidency have said much, but shown little progress. The Democrats that are currently serving have done little better but have not been obligated with the responsibility for Congressional leadership. It is important to note that the Democrats that were elected to fill formerly Republican seats last night were primarily moderate to conservative, politically. This indicates that the voters were not looking to replace incumbents with politicians with radically different policies in all areas.
In general, the American people are looking for pragmatic leaders willing to work across the aisle with little or no discomfort. We are growing tired of career politicians that argue only in terms of Republican or Democrat values and would like to replace them with leaders looking for solutions without regard to parties.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won re-election last night in a landslide victory.
It was hardly unexpected. For weeks (or months) now it has been very apparent that the Governator was going to win by a large margin. He is a seemingly unstoppable force in California politics right now, and is a Republican in a year where Republicans are getting slaughtered everywhere.
What is it about this legendary man that has given him the ability to win so handily? Can we apply his magic to the rest of our party?
The simplest answer is that he not a conservative but a moderate. Many Republicans have criticized him for ceasing to be a REAL Republican. While I don’t believe the Governor to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only). In fact, he has moved in a direction other Republicans should follow.
Governor Schwarzenegger is a pragmatic centrist. He maintains strict principles that he believes to be necessary for the growth of California’s economy. His social values are more in keeping with the “Small Government” tenets of the Republican philosophy than the Republican Party Platforms are. In reality, Governor Schwarzenegger is a better Republican than any other elected in California.
He won last night because the good people of California see him for what he has accomplished and attempted to accomplish in California. During the Recall Campaign, the Governor took his seat as an outsider loved by the state because he was not a seasoned politician, had glamour and celebrity, and was promising to lead in a way that was different. Throughout this campaign, the Governor promised to continue to lead in this unique way. Instead of guiding the state through the standard party lines, he has chosen a path right down the center aisle of the Legislature, knocking a few people out of the way as he goes.
Other politicians should learn from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s technique. The reason the GOP sustained such huge losses last night was because the people are generally tired of partisan gridlock and rhetoric. The Republicans that currently control the House, Senate, and Presidency have said much, but shown little progress. The Democrats that are currently serving have done little better but have not been obligated with the responsibility for Congressional leadership. It is important to note that the Democrats that were elected to fill formerly Republican seats last night were primarily moderate to conservative, politically. This indicates that the voters were not looking to replace incumbents with politicians with radically different policies in all areas.
In general, the American people are looking for pragmatic leaders willing to work across the aisle with little or no discomfort. We are growing tired of career politicians that argue only in terms of Republican or Democrat values and would like to replace them with leaders looking for solutions without regard to parties.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Endorsements!
While I understand that many political crackheads have already submitted their ballots for the November election (I submitted mine almost a week ago), the elections are coming up. But you probably already knew that, unless, of course, you have been living under a rock for the past few months.
Here in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, we have a super-sized ballot full of ballot initiatives and statewide candidates for office. To help you make sense of the madness, allow me to give you some brief advice on your ballot.
GOVERNOR- Arnold Schwarzenegger
My endorsement absolutely goes to the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. He has a brilliant record on Gay rights and the economy and has proven his moderate credentials. Phil Angelides is a hack that would overtax the state and drive business away without providing any substantial improvements on Schwarzenegger's social policies.
Lt. GOVERNOR- Tom McClintock
What does a Governor Lite do anyway? Since this is a post primarily concerned with waiting for the real governor to leave the state, die, or otherwise vacate his office, it is hard to come up with a good reason to have a Lt. Gov.
A harder question to answer is who is Garamendi? McClintock is a proven conservative. While I definitely disapprove of his views on Gay rights, he is a fiscal watchdog that would do a fine job...if that had anything to do with the office of Lt. Gov. I will endorse him anyway because I really don't like the idea of a no-name Democrat keeping the seat of the Governor-in-Waiting warm.
ATTORNEY GENERAL- Chuck Poochigian
I have already posted on the reasons I am not supporting Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown for Attorney General. Despite the impact the office can have on Gay issues in California, Brown won't be tough on crime. Poochigian would be. It's that simple.
SECRETARY OF STATE- No Endorsement
I heavily considered giving my endorsement to Bruce McPherson, but he doesn't excite me. After former SOS, Kevin Shelley screwed up and was forced into resignation from office in a cloud of shame, McPherson stepped up to the plate to be appointed SOS. Well, sort of.
I think somebody forgot to tell him he was named Secretary.
His term was marked, well, by nothing. Granted that Secretary of State is not the most exciting office in Sacramento, but he seems to have kept things going as business as usual without any remarkable innovation.
Bowen, on the other hand, is a rebel rouser that seems to want to go totally back to paper ballots. While it is good to have a healthy fear of electronic voting machines, her fear of technology borders on paranoid.
CONTROLLER- Tony Strickland
Who would be a better person to elect as the official fiscal watchdog of the state than the man who successfully sued Gray Davis? Strickland was the youngest person to ever serve in the Assembly, was a powerful force in YAF, and would be a strong leader to preside over the Board of Equalization. And his opponent? Some Democratic unknown.
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER- Steve Poizner
I won't even pretend to have a rationale for why I am endorsing Poizner. Really, I just have a great disdain for Cruz Bustamante and his greedy ways. Cruz has spent the greater part of his adult life "earning" a paycheck in elected office. In his most recent gig, he didn't even have to do anything to keep making six-figures except wait around for a Governor to leave office...and he managed to do a poor job at that! Even more recently, Bustamante got caught taking large amounts of money from insurance companies in the form of campaign contributions. While this normally wouldn't be a big problem, he is running for a job that's sole purpose is to oversee regulations on those same companies. If that doesn't reek of impropriety, I don't know what does.
US SENATE- Dianne Feinstein
DiFi is one of my favorite politicians alive today! Sure I hate her history on gun rights and dislike her position on abortion, but she has managed to carve herself a niche as a pragmatic problemsolver. She has been a great representative of California in the US Senate to date, and I expect her to have several more good years in office. This Republican proudly supports DiFi for office.
Here in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, we have a super-sized ballot full of ballot initiatives and statewide candidates for office. To help you make sense of the madness, allow me to give you some brief advice on your ballot.
GOVERNOR- Arnold Schwarzenegger
My endorsement absolutely goes to the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. He has a brilliant record on Gay rights and the economy and has proven his moderate credentials. Phil Angelides is a hack that would overtax the state and drive business away without providing any substantial improvements on Schwarzenegger's social policies.
Lt. GOVERNOR- Tom McClintock
What does a Governor Lite do anyway? Since this is a post primarily concerned with waiting for the real governor to leave the state, die, or otherwise vacate his office, it is hard to come up with a good reason to have a Lt. Gov.
A harder question to answer is who is Garamendi? McClintock is a proven conservative. While I definitely disapprove of his views on Gay rights, he is a fiscal watchdog that would do a fine job...if that had anything to do with the office of Lt. Gov. I will endorse him anyway because I really don't like the idea of a no-name Democrat keeping the seat of the Governor-in-Waiting warm.
ATTORNEY GENERAL- Chuck Poochigian
I have already posted on the reasons I am not supporting Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown for Attorney General. Despite the impact the office can have on Gay issues in California, Brown won't be tough on crime. Poochigian would be. It's that simple.
SECRETARY OF STATE- No Endorsement
I heavily considered giving my endorsement to Bruce McPherson, but he doesn't excite me. After former SOS, Kevin Shelley screwed up and was forced into resignation from office in a cloud of shame, McPherson stepped up to the plate to be appointed SOS. Well, sort of.
I think somebody forgot to tell him he was named Secretary.
His term was marked, well, by nothing. Granted that Secretary of State is not the most exciting office in Sacramento, but he seems to have kept things going as business as usual without any remarkable innovation.
Bowen, on the other hand, is a rebel rouser that seems to want to go totally back to paper ballots. While it is good to have a healthy fear of electronic voting machines, her fear of technology borders on paranoid.
CONTROLLER- Tony Strickland
Who would be a better person to elect as the official fiscal watchdog of the state than the man who successfully sued Gray Davis? Strickland was the youngest person to ever serve in the Assembly, was a powerful force in YAF, and would be a strong leader to preside over the Board of Equalization. And his opponent? Some Democratic unknown.
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER- Steve Poizner
I won't even pretend to have a rationale for why I am endorsing Poizner. Really, I just have a great disdain for Cruz Bustamante and his greedy ways. Cruz has spent the greater part of his adult life "earning" a paycheck in elected office. In his most recent gig, he didn't even have to do anything to keep making six-figures except wait around for a Governor to leave office...and he managed to do a poor job at that! Even more recently, Bustamante got caught taking large amounts of money from insurance companies in the form of campaign contributions. While this normally wouldn't be a big problem, he is running for a job that's sole purpose is to oversee regulations on those same companies. If that doesn't reek of impropriety, I don't know what does.
US SENATE- Dianne Feinstein
DiFi is one of my favorite politicians alive today! Sure I hate her history on gun rights and dislike her position on abortion, but she has managed to carve herself a niche as a pragmatic problemsolver. She has been a great representative of California in the US Senate to date, and I expect her to have several more good years in office. This Republican proudly supports DiFi for office.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Berkeley College Republicans in the Wall Street Journal
On Friday, when I did my usual look through The Wall Street Journal, I saw a familiar face. Between the sketches of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nancy Pelosi, and various other political heavyweights was the poorly drawn image of fellow Golden Bear, Josiah Prendergast, President of the Berkeley College Republicans.
Chris Page at the Cal Patriot Blog already blogged about BCR's Wall Street Journal article. Unfortunately his coverage of the article lacks any real news. We already know BCR is a big group on campus and that the conservative mindset is a novelty in the People's Republic of Berkeley. However, he asserts that Republicans are needed in Berkeley more than anywhere and that is why they are a big group. In reality, the number of Republicans on campus is more a function of the increasingly moderate to conservative makeup of the student population. But the size of the club is mostly correlated to the activities of the organization.
The Berkeley College Republicans have fun. Students like to be involved in groups that are fun. It should come as no surprise, then, when BCR posts such large numbers. Really, who doesn't like a group that has lively political debates, fantastic guest speakers, huge events attracting worldwide media coverage, ice-skating trips, parties, bar nights, and other activities when people want to organize them? They really try to have something for everyone.
Another key to the success of BCR is that they avoid really divisive topics. The members of BCR, contrary to popular belief, don't sit around and talk about how wonderful it is that we are in Iraq right now or how awful abortion is. When those sorts of topics are brought up in meetings, it is usually in a debate format with two people passionately debating the issues with formal rules followed by the questions and comments of other members.
Berkeley College Republicans can thank their own efforts for developing an organization that people want to be a part of. Good job, guys! Thanks for keeping a conservative beacon on our liberal campus!
UPDATE: Josiah Prendergast, President of BCR, has been asked to appear on Hannity & Colmes on FoxNews on Wednesday. The show will air at 6pm and 11pm, PST.
UPDATE: The CNBC show "Kudlow & Company" is airing a debate at 2 pm tomorrow between Josiah and a representative of the Cal Democrats regarding the November election, students inpolitics, and the future of America.
Chris Page at the Cal Patriot Blog already blogged about BCR's Wall Street Journal article. Unfortunately his coverage of the article lacks any real news. We already know BCR is a big group on campus and that the conservative mindset is a novelty in the People's Republic of Berkeley. However, he asserts that Republicans are needed in Berkeley more than anywhere and that is why they are a big group. In reality, the number of Republicans on campus is more a function of the increasingly moderate to conservative makeup of the student population. But the size of the club is mostly correlated to the activities of the organization.
The Berkeley College Republicans have fun. Students like to be involved in groups that are fun. It should come as no surprise, then, when BCR posts such large numbers. Really, who doesn't like a group that has lively political debates, fantastic guest speakers, huge events attracting worldwide media coverage, ice-skating trips, parties, bar nights, and other activities when people want to organize them? They really try to have something for everyone.
Another key to the success of BCR is that they avoid really divisive topics. The members of BCR, contrary to popular belief, don't sit around and talk about how wonderful it is that we are in Iraq right now or how awful abortion is. When those sorts of topics are brought up in meetings, it is usually in a debate format with two people passionately debating the issues with formal rules followed by the questions and comments of other members.
Berkeley College Republicans can thank their own efforts for developing an organization that people want to be a part of. Good job, guys! Thanks for keeping a conservative beacon on our liberal campus!
UPDATE: Josiah Prendergast, President of BCR, has been asked to appear on Hannity & Colmes on FoxNews on Wednesday. The show will air at 6pm and 11pm, PST.
UPDATE: The CNBC show "Kudlow & Company" is airing a debate at 2 pm tomorrow between Josiah and a representative of the Cal Democrats regarding the November election, students inpolitics, and the future of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
