COPY, PASTE AND SEND THIS MESSAGE TO 10+ FRIENDS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi friends – I'm supporting Tom Campbell for U.S. Senate because he's a conservative free-market economist who will fight federal spending and debt - and because he's the only Republican who can defeat Barbara Boxer, as shown by his 7% lead over Boxer in the latest LA Times/USC poll (which also shows his opponents losing to Boxer).
Tom Campbell is our chance to finally retire Senator Boxer and stop her profligate spending. He and Boxer are miles apart on issues - which you'll see in this new video.
Please watch this video and then copy and paste this message and send to 10 friends. If 30,000 people send this message to just 10 friends, we will reach 300,000 voters in one day. Consider the impact!
http://campbell.org/tell-tom-video
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
A TALE OF TWO WOMEN
by Mark Herrick
President, CRL
If McCain was set on choosing a VP candidate in the last election that was female and from one of our newer and smaller states, McCain should have picked Linda Lingle and not Sarah Palin. Linda Lingle is the type of woman that should be seen as the future of our party, not Sarah Palin. Linda Lingle became the first female Republican governor in the history of Hawaii. The Democrat party had a lock on the state since its founding in 1959, and she broke that lock. She could not get elected without a rash of Democrats and Independents voting for her. On the other hand, Pee-wee Herman could win the governorship of Alaska with the Republican nomination, but it took a very special woman to pull an upset for the Republicans in Hawaii. And Linda Lingle is a very special woman. She is a smart, well-educated woman who has a strong record of cleaning up corruption, reducing waste and fraud, and making government more efficient.
What social conservatives don’t understand is that you need more than the base to win a presidential election in this country. You need a candidate that appeals to people beyond the base. How many Democrats or Independents have you met that would vote for Sarah Palin? It’s like the social conservatives confuse the idea of wanting a candidate that scares the rank and file Democrat because of their policy positions with the idea of a candidate that scares the Democrat leadership because of their electability. Sarah Palin scares Democrat voters (and independents) because they would hate to see her in office. Sarah Palin may scare the average Democrat voter but most people in the Democrat leadership would sell their right arm to have Sarah Palin be the Republican nominee in 2012.
Nominating Sarah Palin would be like punting on first down. She would get almost zero Democrat and Independent votes thereby insuring her opponent’s victory. Democratic voters in Hawaii like Linda Lingle, and she scares the Democrat leadership because they know she could steal voters away from them. Sarah Palin becoming the Republican nominee in 2012 would be Obama’s greatest dream. Linda Lingle would be his worst nightmare.
In California we had a governor with the worst approval ratings in California history; Governor Gray Davis. During the Republican primary Gray Davis actually ran ads against the moderate Republican Los Angeles Mayor Riordan to insure that his opponent would be the socially conservative Simon in the general election. The social conservatives, who control the leadership of the California Republican Party, were sure Davis had made a mistake by helping Simon. Unfortunately the Democrat leadership in California is much more politically savvy than our own Republican leadership.
Not only did Simon scare Democrats and Independents, but he scared them so much that they chose the most unpopular governor in California history instead of Simon. Simon lost the un-losable race. Just nine months after Davis beat Simon by five points; there was a recall election where Arnold Schwarzenegger, who many social conservatives refused to support, crushed Gray Davis in one of the biggest landslides in history.
So the social conservative lost to Davis, and the socially moderate candidate crushed him by almost twenty points only nine months later. Any Republican that is interested in winning instead of just whining and being condemned to the minority should study those two elections and never forget them.
To win back the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate we need candidates that will appeal to Democrats and Independents. Not ones that will scare them. Linda Lingle was the first woman elected to the office of Maui County Mayor, at the age of 37. In 1994, Lingle easily won re-election. Under Lingle’s leadership, Maui County implemented performance-based budgeting. Its successful passage and execution earned for Lingle the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association.
As governor, Lingle has created a record surplus of $730 million, coming from the budget’s previous deficit of $250 million. Governor Lingle has signed a number of important bills into law, including the Three Strikes Law and Sex Offender Registry Website Law. On November 20, 2006, her approval rating stood at 71%, with only 24% disapproval. Those numbers are even more amazing when one realizes that the Democrats are the majority party in the state of Hawaii. Can you even name one positive legislative or executive accomplishment that Sarah Palin achieved in Alaska while she held elective office?
The Democrat leadership is sitting around hoping and praying that we choose candidates like Sarah Palin and Simon in 2010 and 2012, so no matter how badly the Democrats screw up, they can still get reelected. The Republican Party has a long and strong bench of potential female Republican candidates: Christine Todd Whitman, Susan Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Linda Lingle etc. But former Governor Palin is not one of them. Let’s hope she remains in the dugout.
President, CRL
If McCain was set on choosing a VP candidate in the last election that was female and from one of our newer and smaller states, McCain should have picked Linda Lingle and not Sarah Palin. Linda Lingle is the type of woman that should be seen as the future of our party, not Sarah Palin. Linda Lingle became the first female Republican governor in the history of Hawaii. The Democrat party had a lock on the state since its founding in 1959, and she broke that lock. She could not get elected without a rash of Democrats and Independents voting for her. On the other hand, Pee-wee Herman could win the governorship of Alaska with the Republican nomination, but it took a very special woman to pull an upset for the Republicans in Hawaii. And Linda Lingle is a very special woman. She is a smart, well-educated woman who has a strong record of cleaning up corruption, reducing waste and fraud, and making government more efficient.
What social conservatives don’t understand is that you need more than the base to win a presidential election in this country. You need a candidate that appeals to people beyond the base. How many Democrats or Independents have you met that would vote for Sarah Palin? It’s like the social conservatives confuse the idea of wanting a candidate that scares the rank and file Democrat because of their policy positions with the idea of a candidate that scares the Democrat leadership because of their electability. Sarah Palin scares Democrat voters (and independents) because they would hate to see her in office. Sarah Palin may scare the average Democrat voter but most people in the Democrat leadership would sell their right arm to have Sarah Palin be the Republican nominee in 2012.
Nominating Sarah Palin would be like punting on first down. She would get almost zero Democrat and Independent votes thereby insuring her opponent’s victory. Democratic voters in Hawaii like Linda Lingle, and she scares the Democrat leadership because they know she could steal voters away from them. Sarah Palin becoming the Republican nominee in 2012 would be Obama’s greatest dream. Linda Lingle would be his worst nightmare.
In California we had a governor with the worst approval ratings in California history; Governor Gray Davis. During the Republican primary Gray Davis actually ran ads against the moderate Republican Los Angeles Mayor Riordan to insure that his opponent would be the socially conservative Simon in the general election. The social conservatives, who control the leadership of the California Republican Party, were sure Davis had made a mistake by helping Simon. Unfortunately the Democrat leadership in California is much more politically savvy than our own Republican leadership.
Not only did Simon scare Democrats and Independents, but he scared them so much that they chose the most unpopular governor in California history instead of Simon. Simon lost the un-losable race. Just nine months after Davis beat Simon by five points; there was a recall election where Arnold Schwarzenegger, who many social conservatives refused to support, crushed Gray Davis in one of the biggest landslides in history.
So the social conservative lost to Davis, and the socially moderate candidate crushed him by almost twenty points only nine months later. Any Republican that is interested in winning instead of just whining and being condemned to the minority should study those two elections and never forget them.
To win back the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate we need candidates that will appeal to Democrats and Independents. Not ones that will scare them. Linda Lingle was the first woman elected to the office of Maui County Mayor, at the age of 37. In 1994, Lingle easily won re-election. Under Lingle’s leadership, Maui County implemented performance-based budgeting. Its successful passage and execution earned for Lingle the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association.
As governor, Lingle has created a record surplus of $730 million, coming from the budget’s previous deficit of $250 million. Governor Lingle has signed a number of important bills into law, including the Three Strikes Law and Sex Offender Registry Website Law. On November 20, 2006, her approval rating stood at 71%, with only 24% disapproval. Those numbers are even more amazing when one realizes that the Democrats are the majority party in the state of Hawaii. Can you even name one positive legislative or executive accomplishment that Sarah Palin achieved in Alaska while she held elective office?
The Democrat leadership is sitting around hoping and praying that we choose candidates like Sarah Palin and Simon in 2010 and 2012, so no matter how badly the Democrats screw up, they can still get reelected. The Republican Party has a long and strong bench of potential female Republican candidates: Christine Todd Whitman, Susan Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Linda Lingle etc. But former Governor Palin is not one of them. Let’s hope she remains in the dugout.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
My views on a political spectrum
http://platform.ak.facebook.com/www/app_full_proxy.php?app=49238143421&v=1&size=b&cksum=7296b12efac4b8c935ce47db8ac917d3&src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gotoquiz.com%2Fpolitics%2Fgridsm%2F34x31.gif
The Political Spectrum Quiz
According to this quiz I am right social libertarian. I am also a neo-con and somewhat culturally liberal.
scores (from 0 to 10):
Economic issues:+7.02 right
Social issues:+5.43 libertarian
Foreign policy:+5.15 neo-con
Cultural identification:+3.35 liberal
The Political Spectrum Quiz
According to this quiz I am right social libertarian. I am also a neo-con and somewhat culturally liberal.
scores (from 0 to 10):
Economic issues:+7.02 right
Social issues:+5.43 libertarian
Foreign policy:+5.15 neo-con
Cultural identification:+3.35 liberal
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Capitalism: its the worst system save the rest
Milton Friedman clobbers Phil Donahue on his own show.
by Greg Krappman
2:23 Added 23 hours ago
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1127102752233&ref=nf
by Greg Krappman
2:23 Added 23 hours ago
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1127102752233&ref=nf
Monday, July 20, 2009
And the ignorant keep pushing their agenda....
Fundamentalists on the attack Nationwide-are now going after birth control & in-vitro fertilization. Your action is needed.
This past weekend, social extremists from all 50 states held a conference in Las Vegas to strategize and raise resources to promote the deceptively named "personhood" agenda. They already have well organized efforts in 20 states and have started collecting signatures for ballot petition drives in Colorado, Mississippi, Oregon and Montana.
Through ballot initiatives and state legislation, the extremists will promote "personhood" which would change existing law to include that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a human being.
The passage of a personhood measure would be a direct attack on millions of families nationwide, including yours. The ramifications that would come of such a vast legal change are frighteningly ambiguous and these extremists are certainly not telling the full story. They are promoting personhood as "equal rights" for fetuses, but that could not be farther from the truth.
If personhood is passed in just one state expect that it will...
...lock that state Constitution into unwarranted big government control.
...outlaw the most effective forms of birth control used by millions of women and families.
...make it illegal for victims of rape and incest, and women who face a life-threatening pregnancy to seek an abortion.
...criminalize in-vitro fertilization along with its potential to create life.
...women who miscarry could be investigated for negligence.
...women who face an ectopic pregnancy cannot end the pregnancy and risk death.
...be a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
The loopholes in their language are so vague that it could actually lead to pregnant women being subject to a court appointed guardian for their fertilized egg who would regulate the woman's lifestyle choices, i.e., eating habits, exercises, etc.
Their attempts to use the political system to push their own religious beliefs on our country have been stalled in Congress and; as a result, they are taking their fight directly to the state level.
Enough is enough--don't sit silently by and assume that your rights will be protected. Don't allow the GOP to be pulled into this misguided effort. We need to make sure that our GOP state parties and local chairs do not coordinate with these extremists. We cannot have personhood be part of local agendas if the common sense majority in the GOP wants to have a voice in 2010. These single-issue fundamentalists must not be allowed to manipulate state Constitutions and persuade GOP leaders to mindlessly follow along.
Click here to sign a letter that RMC will bring to state party chairs-we need a critical mass to make the difference. It only takes moments to automatically send us your support.
Send this to all of your contacts today and tell them you are taking action - and invite them to follow your lead.
And, while on the RMC website, learn how to follow us on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.
This past weekend, social extremists from all 50 states held a conference in Las Vegas to strategize and raise resources to promote the deceptively named "personhood" agenda. They already have well organized efforts in 20 states and have started collecting signatures for ballot petition drives in Colorado, Mississippi, Oregon and Montana.
Through ballot initiatives and state legislation, the extremists will promote "personhood" which would change existing law to include that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a human being.
The passage of a personhood measure would be a direct attack on millions of families nationwide, including yours. The ramifications that would come of such a vast legal change are frighteningly ambiguous and these extremists are certainly not telling the full story. They are promoting personhood as "equal rights" for fetuses, but that could not be farther from the truth.
If personhood is passed in just one state expect that it will...
...lock that state Constitution into unwarranted big government control.
...outlaw the most effective forms of birth control used by millions of women and families.
...make it illegal for victims of rape and incest, and women who face a life-threatening pregnancy to seek an abortion.
...criminalize in-vitro fertilization along with its potential to create life.
...women who miscarry could be investigated for negligence.
...women who face an ectopic pregnancy cannot end the pregnancy and risk death.
...be a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
The loopholes in their language are so vague that it could actually lead to pregnant women being subject to a court appointed guardian for their fertilized egg who would regulate the woman's lifestyle choices, i.e., eating habits, exercises, etc.
Their attempts to use the political system to push their own religious beliefs on our country have been stalled in Congress and; as a result, they are taking their fight directly to the state level.
Enough is enough--don't sit silently by and assume that your rights will be protected. Don't allow the GOP to be pulled into this misguided effort. We need to make sure that our GOP state parties and local chairs do not coordinate with these extremists. We cannot have personhood be part of local agendas if the common sense majority in the GOP wants to have a voice in 2010. These single-issue fundamentalists must not be allowed to manipulate state Constitutions and persuade GOP leaders to mindlessly follow along.
Click here to sign a letter that RMC will bring to state party chairs-we need a critical mass to make the difference. It only takes moments to automatically send us your support.
Send this to all of your contacts today and tell them you are taking action - and invite them to follow your lead.
And, while on the RMC website, learn how to follow us on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
THE DENIAL CONTINUES:
The California GOP and Abortion
by Mark Herrick
State President, CRL
It is said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Republicans keep running pro-life candidates state wide in California, losing every time, and run them again expecting a different result. Right now, after the 2008 debacle, Republicans are doing all this analysis and soul searching to figure out how to start winning elections again. One solution is as plain as the nose on my face, and therefore, does not need any more analysis or debate. The solution is: don’t run pro-life candidates statewide in California.
However, one man clearly didn’t get the memo. Chuck Devore just announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Chuck Devore won’t win. He might win the primary but he will never be a U.S. Senator from California. I can say that with absolute certainty. Why? Chuck Devore is pro-life. That disqualifies him as a viable candidate in California. Now I don’t want anyone to misunderstand me here; being pro-choice does not guarantee you are going to win, but you have to be pro-choice to have a chance at winning. In addition, I am only talking about California. In other states, the exact opposite might even be true. But in California, a pro-life candidate cannot get elected statewide. You may ask how I could possibly make such a bold statement with such certainty. Especially when the political winds are always changing and anything can happen in politics. Look at President-elect Obama.
Who could have thought he could have become president just six years ago. So it is true - there are very few consistent rules in politics, but there is one rule in California politics that is consistent and unbending. The rule is that a pro-life Candidate can’t win statewide in California. It’s as certain as gravity.
The last U.S. Senator from California who was pro-life was George Murphy — and he was appointed in 1965 and lost his only election in 1970. That means a pro-life U.S. Senator from California has not been elected in my life time. I am forty two years old. Two generations of Californians have been born and reached adulthood without being represented by a pro-life U.S. Senator. The last time a pro-life candidate won state wide in California (besides U.S. Senator that includes the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction) was in 1994. That was Dan Lungren.
The only other Republican to win in 1994 was Chuck Quakenbush and he was pro-choice. And of course, Dan Lungren had the advantage of incumbency that year. When Mr. Lungren ran for Governor four years later he was trounced by Gray Davis. So the record for pro-life state wide candidates in the last fourteen years is one in twenty four. And the one pro-life candidate that did win in that fourteen year period, was an incumbent, and was trounced four years later by Gray Davis; who you have to admit, was not the most charismatic or formidable candidate. In the last ten years the pro-life candidates have had a zero rate of success. That means they are zero and sixteen.
If you need more convincing, a pro-life candidate for President has not captured California’s electoral votes since 1992, and that was George HW Bush who had earlier switched his views on abortion. The last pro-life governor in California was Ronald Reagan and he was elected the year I was born.
On the subject of California Governors, pro-choice Arnold Schwarzenegger trounced Gray Davis just eight months after pro-life Bill Simon lost to him. When Bill Simon ran against Gray Davis, Gray Davis had the lowest approval ratings of any Governor in the history of California. He had the same chances at reelection as Herbert Hoover did in 1932. Yet somehow bill Simon found a way to lose to Gray Davis. Do you think his position on abortion had something to do with it? And like I said, just eight months later, pro-choice Arnold Schwarzenegger trounced Gray Davis. Seeing a trend here?
You may wonder how a political rule such as the one I am claiming could exist. You just need to look at the views of the average California voter. The most recent PPIC poll (January of 2007) showed that 71% of California voters support Roe v. Wade. In 2002, 71% of voters said they considered themselves pro-choice. That number represents almost ¾ of the California electorate. I can’t think of any other current hot political issue where ¾ of the California electorate supports one side. Can you?
If you are still not convinced, look at propositions seventy three, eighty five, and most recently; proposition four. Three times the pro-life activists in this state have tried to pass a proposition that would just require a minor to notify their parents before they have an abortion. This proposition was rejected not once, but thrice by the voters of this state.
Think about what that means is going on in the California voters’ mind. They are fine with the fact that a doctor can’t even give a minor an aspirin without getting their parent’s consent and yet the California electorate insisted three times that a female minor be able to get an abortion not only without her parent’s consent, but she doesn’t even have to notify them. Californians are so pro-choice they have given the right of an abortion to a minor when they haven’t given them the right to vote, drive a car, have a beer or choose to buy a cigarette. And yet somehow, Chuck Devore, expects this same firmly pro-choice electorate to elect candidates that think abortion should be illegal in the first trimester.
You may think, well why can’t a pro-life candidate just focus on different issues? Unfortunately, a candidate’s opponents also has a say on which issues are discussed. And if the Republicans run a pro-life candidate statewide you can bet your bottom dollar their opponent will discuss abortion. It’s the Democrat’s trump card. When Matt Fong, who thought abortion should be legal in the first trimester, ran against Barbara Boxer in 1998, Boxer ran commercial after commercial showing that he was pro-life when it came to late term abortions and parental consent. She ran those commercials repeatedly against Matt Fong and beat him handily. When it looked as though Tom McClintock might beat Steve Westly for the position as state controller in 2002, at the end of the race, Steve Westly started running television ads pointing out that McClintock was pro-life. He pointed out the one weakness that he new would work, and of course, he beat McClintock. The irony here is that the State Controller has absolutely no influence over the abortion issue, but California voters didn’t seem to care.
On most issues you can’t get such consistency from the California electorate as you get from them on the abortion issue. Californians elect candidates all the time that disagree with them on some important issues. For example, Jerry Brown is against the death penalty, and sixty seven percent of Californians support the death penalty (that is over two thirds), and yet two years ago the California voters elected Jerry Brown to the office of Attorney General. You may ask how could a man that has a reputation as being so liberal, and disagrees with two thirds of the electorate on one of the most important issues for an attorney general: the death penalty; win the office of Attorney General? The answer is he ran against a pro-life Republican. It seems no matter how bad a candidate the Democrats put up, that candidate will win if he or she faces a pro-life Republican. This is how we get so many extreme liberals representing such a conservative state; these ultra liberal Democrats slip into an otherwise unobtainable office because we make the mistake of putting up unelectable candidates against them. The last time Jerry Brown ran state wide he lost, but of course when he lost, he ran against a pro-choice Republican; Pete Wilson.
Therefore, it seems Californians will elect candidates that differ with them on many issues, as long as the candidate is with them on most of the other issues and the opposing candidate does not appeal to them. However, the exception to this rule is the abortion issue. Californians will not elect a pro-life candidate state wide no matter how much they agree with that candidate on other issues, and who that candidate is running against.
The tragic comedy about running pro-life candidates statewide in California is that, if elected, they could do absolutely nothing about abortion in California. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that abortion is a right under the US Constitution. Even if the Supreme Court changed its mind, and overturned Roe v. Wade, that would leave the decision whether abortion was legal to the states. And the California Supreme Court has ruled not only that women in California, under the California Constitution, have a right to abortions, but they have a right to late term abortions and minors have a right to have an abortion without telling their parents. The only way these California Supreme Court decisions could be overturned would be by a proposition, and this proposition would have to be passed by the same electorate that has voted that minors have a right to an abortion without parental consent three times.
So if pro-life candidates can’t get elected statewide in California, and even if they could there is nothing they could do to affect the abortion issue in this state, why even run a pro-life candidate? To make a statement? Well while you are making your statement, you are insuring Democrat victories. Every time the Republicans run a pro-life candidate state wide, we are just handing that office to the Democrats. Democrats pray that their opponent will be pro-life. Gray Davis even went so far as to insure that his opponent in his reelection was pro-life (Simon) by running television ads against pro-choice Riordan in the Republican Party primary to help pro-life Simon win. And California Republicans, in our infinite wisdom, let Davis choose his opponent. And what happened – one of the most unpopular incumbents in California history won because we let Gray Davis choose a pro-life candidate as his opponent.
When we nominate pro-life candidates we allow extremely liberal Democrats to get elected. Boxer has reaped the benefit of our inability to run a pro-choice candidate against her multiple times. She is one of the most liberal Senators in the U.S. Senate, but she keeps returning because we run pro-life candidates against her. Think about what this means for the future. Gerry Brown is thinking about running for Governor in 2010. This is a goal he will achieve, if he wins the Democrat primary and we run a pro-life candidate against him. If he runs for Governor, San Francisco District Attorney Kamela D. Harris is thinking about running to replace him as Attorney General. She is very controversial because she refused to pursue the death penalty for a man that shot and killed a cop in San Francisco. Normally such a woman wouldn’t have a chance of winning the office of California Attorney General. However, if she wins the Democrat primary, and we run a pro-life candidate against her, like we did with Gerry Brown, she will win.
In politics you have to respect the wish of the voters or face oblivion. The electorate in California has made it very clear what their position on abortion is and will only vote for candidates that support their position. I don’t know how they could make their position on this issue any clearer.
Californians are fiscally conservative and generally support most Republican principles. When we put up pro-choice candidates for state wide office, they don’t always win but often our candidates win by a landslide. Wilson, Poizner, and Schwarzenegger won all of their state wide elections by huge margins. But when we put up pro-life candidates we always get beaten.
Having discussions about how Republicans can win statewide in California, without addressing the abortion issue, is like discussing how you can get your car to win the Indy 500 when it doesn’t have wheels. You have to insure you have wheels on the car first, or all other considerations are moot. The same goes for California statewide candidates. Unless they are pro-choice, no matter whom you run, and what their positions are on other issues, how much money they have and how well they run their campaign, they are like that Indy car with no wheels; victory is impossible.
.
The California GOP and Abortion
by Mark Herrick
State President, CRL
It is said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Republicans keep running pro-life candidates state wide in California, losing every time, and run them again expecting a different result. Right now, after the 2008 debacle, Republicans are doing all this analysis and soul searching to figure out how to start winning elections again. One solution is as plain as the nose on my face, and therefore, does not need any more analysis or debate. The solution is: don’t run pro-life candidates statewide in California.
However, one man clearly didn’t get the memo. Chuck Devore just announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Chuck Devore won’t win. He might win the primary but he will never be a U.S. Senator from California. I can say that with absolute certainty. Why? Chuck Devore is pro-life. That disqualifies him as a viable candidate in California. Now I don’t want anyone to misunderstand me here; being pro-choice does not guarantee you are going to win, but you have to be pro-choice to have a chance at winning. In addition, I am only talking about California. In other states, the exact opposite might even be true. But in California, a pro-life candidate cannot get elected statewide. You may ask how I could possibly make such a bold statement with such certainty. Especially when the political winds are always changing and anything can happen in politics. Look at President-elect Obama.
Who could have thought he could have become president just six years ago. So it is true - there are very few consistent rules in politics, but there is one rule in California politics that is consistent and unbending. The rule is that a pro-life Candidate can’t win statewide in California. It’s as certain as gravity.
The last U.S. Senator from California who was pro-life was George Murphy — and he was appointed in 1965 and lost his only election in 1970. That means a pro-life U.S. Senator from California has not been elected in my life time. I am forty two years old. Two generations of Californians have been born and reached adulthood without being represented by a pro-life U.S. Senator. The last time a pro-life candidate won state wide in California (besides U.S. Senator that includes the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction) was in 1994. That was Dan Lungren.
The only other Republican to win in 1994 was Chuck Quakenbush and he was pro-choice. And of course, Dan Lungren had the advantage of incumbency that year. When Mr. Lungren ran for Governor four years later he was trounced by Gray Davis. So the record for pro-life state wide candidates in the last fourteen years is one in twenty four. And the one pro-life candidate that did win in that fourteen year period, was an incumbent, and was trounced four years later by Gray Davis; who you have to admit, was not the most charismatic or formidable candidate. In the last ten years the pro-life candidates have had a zero rate of success. That means they are zero and sixteen.
If you need more convincing, a pro-life candidate for President has not captured California’s electoral votes since 1992, and that was George HW Bush who had earlier switched his views on abortion. The last pro-life governor in California was Ronald Reagan and he was elected the year I was born.
On the subject of California Governors, pro-choice Arnold Schwarzenegger trounced Gray Davis just eight months after pro-life Bill Simon lost to him. When Bill Simon ran against Gray Davis, Gray Davis had the lowest approval ratings of any Governor in the history of California. He had the same chances at reelection as Herbert Hoover did in 1932. Yet somehow bill Simon found a way to lose to Gray Davis. Do you think his position on abortion had something to do with it? And like I said, just eight months later, pro-choice Arnold Schwarzenegger trounced Gray Davis. Seeing a trend here?
You may wonder how a political rule such as the one I am claiming could exist. You just need to look at the views of the average California voter. The most recent PPIC poll (January of 2007) showed that 71% of California voters support Roe v. Wade. In 2002, 71% of voters said they considered themselves pro-choice. That number represents almost ¾ of the California electorate. I can’t think of any other current hot political issue where ¾ of the California electorate supports one side. Can you?
If you are still not convinced, look at propositions seventy three, eighty five, and most recently; proposition four. Three times the pro-life activists in this state have tried to pass a proposition that would just require a minor to notify their parents before they have an abortion. This proposition was rejected not once, but thrice by the voters of this state.
Think about what that means is going on in the California voters’ mind. They are fine with the fact that a doctor can’t even give a minor an aspirin without getting their parent’s consent and yet the California electorate insisted three times that a female minor be able to get an abortion not only without her parent’s consent, but she doesn’t even have to notify them. Californians are so pro-choice they have given the right of an abortion to a minor when they haven’t given them the right to vote, drive a car, have a beer or choose to buy a cigarette. And yet somehow, Chuck Devore, expects this same firmly pro-choice electorate to elect candidates that think abortion should be illegal in the first trimester.
You may think, well why can’t a pro-life candidate just focus on different issues? Unfortunately, a candidate’s opponents also has a say on which issues are discussed. And if the Republicans run a pro-life candidate statewide you can bet your bottom dollar their opponent will discuss abortion. It’s the Democrat’s trump card. When Matt Fong, who thought abortion should be legal in the first trimester, ran against Barbara Boxer in 1998, Boxer ran commercial after commercial showing that he was pro-life when it came to late term abortions and parental consent. She ran those commercials repeatedly against Matt Fong and beat him handily. When it looked as though Tom McClintock might beat Steve Westly for the position as state controller in 2002, at the end of the race, Steve Westly started running television ads pointing out that McClintock was pro-life. He pointed out the one weakness that he new would work, and of course, he beat McClintock. The irony here is that the State Controller has absolutely no influence over the abortion issue, but California voters didn’t seem to care.
On most issues you can’t get such consistency from the California electorate as you get from them on the abortion issue. Californians elect candidates all the time that disagree with them on some important issues. For example, Jerry Brown is against the death penalty, and sixty seven percent of Californians support the death penalty (that is over two thirds), and yet two years ago the California voters elected Jerry Brown to the office of Attorney General. You may ask how could a man that has a reputation as being so liberal, and disagrees with two thirds of the electorate on one of the most important issues for an attorney general: the death penalty; win the office of Attorney General? The answer is he ran against a pro-life Republican. It seems no matter how bad a candidate the Democrats put up, that candidate will win if he or she faces a pro-life Republican. This is how we get so many extreme liberals representing such a conservative state; these ultra liberal Democrats slip into an otherwise unobtainable office because we make the mistake of putting up unelectable candidates against them. The last time Jerry Brown ran state wide he lost, but of course when he lost, he ran against a pro-choice Republican; Pete Wilson.
Therefore, it seems Californians will elect candidates that differ with them on many issues, as long as the candidate is with them on most of the other issues and the opposing candidate does not appeal to them. However, the exception to this rule is the abortion issue. Californians will not elect a pro-life candidate state wide no matter how much they agree with that candidate on other issues, and who that candidate is running against.
The tragic comedy about running pro-life candidates statewide in California is that, if elected, they could do absolutely nothing about abortion in California. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that abortion is a right under the US Constitution. Even if the Supreme Court changed its mind, and overturned Roe v. Wade, that would leave the decision whether abortion was legal to the states. And the California Supreme Court has ruled not only that women in California, under the California Constitution, have a right to abortions, but they have a right to late term abortions and minors have a right to have an abortion without telling their parents. The only way these California Supreme Court decisions could be overturned would be by a proposition, and this proposition would have to be passed by the same electorate that has voted that minors have a right to an abortion without parental consent three times.
So if pro-life candidates can’t get elected statewide in California, and even if they could there is nothing they could do to affect the abortion issue in this state, why even run a pro-life candidate? To make a statement? Well while you are making your statement, you are insuring Democrat victories. Every time the Republicans run a pro-life candidate state wide, we are just handing that office to the Democrats. Democrats pray that their opponent will be pro-life. Gray Davis even went so far as to insure that his opponent in his reelection was pro-life (Simon) by running television ads against pro-choice Riordan in the Republican Party primary to help pro-life Simon win. And California Republicans, in our infinite wisdom, let Davis choose his opponent. And what happened – one of the most unpopular incumbents in California history won because we let Gray Davis choose a pro-life candidate as his opponent.
When we nominate pro-life candidates we allow extremely liberal Democrats to get elected. Boxer has reaped the benefit of our inability to run a pro-choice candidate against her multiple times. She is one of the most liberal Senators in the U.S. Senate, but she keeps returning because we run pro-life candidates against her. Think about what this means for the future. Gerry Brown is thinking about running for Governor in 2010. This is a goal he will achieve, if he wins the Democrat primary and we run a pro-life candidate against him. If he runs for Governor, San Francisco District Attorney Kamela D. Harris is thinking about running to replace him as Attorney General. She is very controversial because she refused to pursue the death penalty for a man that shot and killed a cop in San Francisco. Normally such a woman wouldn’t have a chance of winning the office of California Attorney General. However, if she wins the Democrat primary, and we run a pro-life candidate against her, like we did with Gerry Brown, she will win.
In politics you have to respect the wish of the voters or face oblivion. The electorate in California has made it very clear what their position on abortion is and will only vote for candidates that support their position. I don’t know how they could make their position on this issue any clearer.
Californians are fiscally conservative and generally support most Republican principles. When we put up pro-choice candidates for state wide office, they don’t always win but often our candidates win by a landslide. Wilson, Poizner, and Schwarzenegger won all of their state wide elections by huge margins. But when we put up pro-life candidates we always get beaten.
Having discussions about how Republicans can win statewide in California, without addressing the abortion issue, is like discussing how you can get your car to win the Indy 500 when it doesn’t have wheels. You have to insure you have wheels on the car first, or all other considerations are moot. The same goes for California statewide candidates. Unless they are pro-choice, no matter whom you run, and what their positions are on other issues, how much money they have and how well they run their campaign, they are like that Indy car with no wheels; victory is impossible.
.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Obam Rewrites the Cold War
Yesterday a friend of mine from College's OpEd piece was published in the Wall Street Journal. I have posted it below because I think it is very good.
Obama Rewrites the Cold War
The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.
By LIZ CHENEY
There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.
Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."
The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.
It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.
Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.
The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old."
Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.
The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.
Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?
The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America's Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. "No people in history," it reads, "have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies."
Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally -- by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities -- as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies' lies about us.
Obama Rewrites the Cold War
The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.
By LIZ CHENEY
There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.
Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."
The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.
It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.
Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.
The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old."
Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.
The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.
Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?
The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America's Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. "No people in history," it reads, "have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies."
Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally -- by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities -- as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies' lies about us.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
