Abram Wilson recently sent an email about the California Republican Party Platform and the current proposal to eliminate important parts of the platform that appeal to conservatives.
First let me say the Abram Wilson is a decent man. He ran twice in an Assembly District that had been previously represented by Republicans. Unfortunately despite the investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars he lost both times. And while Wilson REFUSED to fill out a pro-life questionnaire during those elections and his website never mentioned Proposition 8 nor the Second Amendment and he defended banks during the fiscal crises in 2010, I’m sure he would have been a better legislator that Assemblywoman Buchanan is.
I admire Wilson for realizing after his two losses the need for a conservative platform. In the email he asks people to read a draft different from the actual approved drafting committee version and “note its strong conservative ideals that are pro-life, pro-family, pro-second amendment, and anti-tax while focusing on the issues that will be most important to Californians such as jobs, the economy and education. “
But this is my question that has yet to be answered. What didn’t Wilson and the other liberals that voted for his platform like in the old platform.?
Was it this?
“We support laws that protect unborn children from partial birth abortions, sex selection abortions, tax-payer funded abortions, abortions performed as a form of birth control, or abortions on minor girls without their parent’s notification and consent.”
Maybe this?
“We support adoption as an alternative to abortion and call on lawmakers to reduce the bureaucratic burden placed on adoptive couples.”
What about this?
“As a part of respecting the sanctity of life for disabled persons, we oppose efforts to legalize assisted suicide or euthanasia.”
Maybe it was this part they didn’t like the whole plank on the Second amendment below.
“The United States Constitution guarantees the right of its citizenry to keep and bear arms. One of the first acts of a totalitarian society is to disarm its people. California’s gun control laws only serve to disarm law abiding citizens, not criminals. We oppose any further gun control legislation and support the right of all California citizens to own and bear guns and ammunition for any lawful purpose. We call for statewide legislation to allow qualified law abiding citizens in California to carry concealed weapons. We support allowing citizens to use deadly force to protect lives and property. We also support including all of these rights in the California constitution.
Finally, we call for the elimination of waiting periods to purchase firearms and instead support complete implementation of instant background checks.”
Wilson and others voted to cut off all discussion on that section before it could even be proposed. There was some good news though the new proposed draft does get above ground water storage inserted in the platform. The Dam part of our GOP coalition made it. Whew!
Although that was a welcome relief, shouldn’t Wilson, and the others have to explain why they are eliminating huge parts of conservative sections?
Give the Wilson challenge to the next person that talks about how hardcore conservative the platform is. Ask what the problem is with the current language. I am waiting.
One more thing. Refusing to respond won’t cut it this time
August 5th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Mike – Wilson’s email is a lie. Not unlike some of the accusations being promoted around the CRA.
Here’s to the CRA finishing its’ clean-up and to the Platform Committee rolling Abram Wilson and his crew over with a tank.
This situation is why a strong CRA is necessary – and a strong CRA is one built on truth and not fraud.
And, it will be the CRA that stands up to those that are on a rampage to drive the CRP down to 25% and lower by abandoning what makes the Republican Party the Republican Party.
August 5th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
That the CRA links gunrights wth ‘pro life’ and Prop 8 crap shows how
little they know about gun rights.
The fact they take a losing political position on the last two items means
they’re no help on the former.
Call me when a Republican can get elected to statewide office in CA, esp
with mention of ‘pro life’ stuff.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
August 5th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Bill. Explain to me and the majority of voters that voted for Proposition 8 how it is a “losing” proposition? I also didn’t know I can’t be concerned about gun rights if I am pro-life. Wow how intolerant.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Mike:
1.) Yep, on Prop 8 you got a one-time win likely not replicable now.
It took a bunch of external money (including actions that resulted in FPPC fines of the LDS church) and diverted the party efforts from what it should be focused on – gov’t efficiency/size reduction, and tax sanity/business growth. Prop 8 run today wouldn’t pass.
It’s likely gonna fail in the courts anyway. You guys can’t even get good lawyers to defend it (i.e, compared to Ted Olson, Boies, etc.)
Interesting that CA Reeps are more concerned with personal matters than fixing a sick state gov’t, and want constitutional rights/equal protection subject to a ‘mob rule’ vote. Sorry, FAIL.
2.) Yeah, you friggin’ betcha I am intolerant of a LOSING party. If you lose, you can’t promote gun rights, so your stance is de facto anti-gun, yet you continue to insist you’re the pro-gun party. RESULTS ARE WHAT COUNTS – somehow you’ve never heard of “just win, baby.”
CA Reep Party mgmt must be aware that this is a losing position but they continue the stance. CA has a strong libertarian twist to it that the party elders must be aware of (and reject).
The pro-life stance is one of the key reasons a large fraction of folks – otherwise generally fiscally conservative – don’t vote R in CA. To these folks party’s position stinks so much to them they’re willing to pay higher taxes to avoid having R’s in office. (I have no dog in this particular fight one way or another except on outcomes based on the party’s loss). The age demographic and single female skew of CA voters just won’t allow a pro-life-focused candidate to take statewide office. The election results speak for themselves.
Oh, btw, it’s very funny – a Prop 8 supporter talking about intolerance. That’s rich.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
Yes, you’ll continue to win some safe seats thru your ‘affirmative
action’ deal. Call me when you guys have relevance outside holding up
the budget (and even that’s at severe risk).
Every analyst out there says Reeps in CA are a now, and will continue to be in ‘permanent minority’ status.
August 7th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
30% registered Republican and tons of sort of squishee moderates.
Your platform should be short and pithy!
Your bedroom is yours….
We own the education search for excellence policy…
Want to keep your hard earned money….we believe you do….
There are no hyphenated Californians….we all came from the creator and our party is for your freedom, prosperity and physical security
…
August 10th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Robert..
Nicely said! That platform would certainly get more folks elected
than any current-vintage Reep platform…
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA