FLASHREPORT

Once again Jon, you have gone off the rails with your "overwhelmingly" comment. The vote in the platform committee was 39 to 31 to adopt the "white" version - the proposed version that is the so-called "strong, conservative pro-life" platform. And on the floor, to my surprise, there were two votes on adopting the platform: the first vote called by our CRP Chairman was, to my ears, NO. But quick as a little bunny, our fearless CRP Chairman called for a second vote and, again, to my ears, it sounded like the NO vote prevailed, but Ron said "in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it" and that was that. Now, I'm not the political expert that you are Jon, but 39 to 31 and No on the floor doesn't look like overwhelming support for a 19th century platform imposed on a 21st century party by a right wing theological faction.

Bob, it's a good thing we have you around to set the record straight ;)

Sorry we didn't get a chance to meet at the convention.

Bob, was there any talk of removing our fearless CRP chairman? What about the debt retirement?

Thank you, Jon; I don't recall seeing anyone at the convention who looks like your picture on the blog. If I had I would have come over to you and introduced myself to you. But I'm sure we will meet one day.

Katie, I didn't hear a single word from anyone about removing the Chairman and the current board. Perhaps Jon has raised the money to pay off the debt.

Hey Bob, I was there too and as I remember it there were a few votes on some issues that were close. However the one you mention was when supporters of the "green version" who were not Committee members voted illegally. At that time there were 55 Platform Committee members in the room.

At the end of the day the Platform Committee overwhelmingly adopted the Amended Platform on a voice vote. As I remember it it was everybody to about four.

Ron Nehring was a SUPERB County chairman here in San Diego,
leaving the party much stronger than when he found it.

Would you care to spell out your complaints Mr. Michaelini,
or is Innuendo the only song you can sing?

"...Delegates overwhelmingly re-adopted a strong, conservative pro-life..."

There you have it. The OC Bible thumpers have yet again maneuvered to render CA Republicanism an irrelevancy.

REPUBLICANS NEED TO S.T.F.U ABOUT 'PRO LIFE' and "FAMILY" IF THEY EVER WANT TO SEE STATEWIDE OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA AGAIN. These issues are OVER and DEAD and no amount of politicking will ever reverse their status.

CA Rs have just written off swing votes and votes from fairly conservative middle/upper income suburban and exurban homeowners who are scared off by antichoice/ prolife position - along with concomitant fears religion will creep into school science curricula. This is a demographic the R's should *OWN* yet they're sliding off into state-level Whigism.

And the 'family' codeword and underlying religious connotations scare off some folks that might otherwise feel at home in a sane Republican party - the party limited effective government, business growth, etc.

While the actual issues above don't have any intrinsic significance to me, the fact that the CA Republican leadership keeps serving the same continually- rejected dogmeat indicates an utter failure in marketing and management. Any product manager who kept promoting a product that wasn't selling would be out of job, yet we've been cycling the same product around for over a decade or so.

If you wonder why Republicans are generally no longer electable to statewide office - other than their 'affirmative action' protected safe legislative seats - this is exactly the reason why.

As a gun-rights advocate, when I see a party that supposedly supports my general beliefs instead render itself unelectable to statewide office, I'm beginning to think they're essentially working against my efforts: results, not sentiments are what count.

If CA Republicans are ever again going to achieve more than maintaining their token seats in the legislature and just using veto power on budget to get some marginal results, they're gonna have to kick the OC Christian conservative leadership coven to the curb. These folks' support costs more than it's worth: losing the 'freak corner' percentage to the gained, and sustainable, more middle ground is very sound tradeoff.





Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

Here is a very late news bulletin: Christians are no longer
the "free spot on the Bingo board."

Anti-religious bigotry is not exactly the ticket to election success.

James Sills wrote, in apparent response to my post above,

"...Christians are no longer the
free spot on the bingo board...
Anti-religious bigotry is not
exactly the ticket to election
success."

Really?

For one, this is not antireligious bigotry. This is practical politics, about winning elections.
Some of the OC relgious folks close to the core of the Calif R party seem not to understand this.

Do please examine the correlation between key "Christian conservative" positions that drive the party (or are perceived to drive the party - since perception is just about everything in politics), and the inability for California Repubs to hold anything but "safe seats" (i.e, no important statewide offices aside from Arnie and Poizner).

These folks driving the Republican platform, and the platform mention of 'pro life'/'pro family' scares away many folks that might otherwise join us.

THE RELIGIOUS TAINT TO THE PLATFORM SCARES MIDDLE-OF-ROAD FOLKS SO BADLY THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY TO STAY AWAY FROM IT - by voting in tax & spend Democrats as less odious. When your product is so bad that people pay to avoid it, you know it stinks.

Time after time, educated suburban middle/upper-income homeowners indicate concerns over 'choice' as a leading cause for voting for Democrats, despite a tilt for reduced gov't, lower taxes, etc.

Until the R's shut up about 'pro life' and 'pro family' - and stop using these codewords - they will continue to lose most elections except for protected safe seats.
The taint is so bad it washes off even on Republicans that are very far from the "evangelical Christian" orientation.

I'm sure Don Perata loves your stance, as you and your ilk thus give him power.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Please re-read your last 2 posts, but insert "Jew", "Hindu", "Buddhist"
or "Bahai" for the word "Christian".... and listen to how they sound then.

Any conservative Christian who made analagous remarks about those
of another faith would be (figuratively) pilloried.... and would deserve it.

Conservatives are a political minority in California, and we should not rely on raw meat for the base in maintaining our vote share. We should be pragmatic yet maintaining the issues that unite the center, right and left of our party so we can lead the state. I would rather see solutions to solve the 15 billion dollar budget deficit instead of endorsing initiatives to marginalize people in our state.

If we want to succeed in the box office of Sacramento we need to bring back the centrist Republicans who fled away from the party.

The party needs a makeover so it can become relevant. It does not mean we need to convert to liberalism like our governor, but it means to learn how to respect individual rights and liberties of ALL Californians.

Thank You

Thank you, Matt, at least YOU get it.

More religionist pro-lifers ain't gonna get us anywhere in CA, period.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA