Posted on 09/06/2009 11:00:23 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
At our next Republican Convention here in California, the most important vote we take may be the vote to close our primary elections, ensuring that people are Republicans before they can choose who will represent our party on the ballot. Since 1999 when we opened our primaries to those who do not join a party, we have had no noteworthy statewide electoral success from primary-nominated Republicans (our dear Governor Schwarzenegger, remember, bypassed the primary process in the recall of Governor Gray Davis).
So the benefits of the open primary have been shown to be minimal. Yet a certain coalition of Republicans will be fighting hard to keep our primaries open. Notable in that coalition are the backers of Meg “I’m a huge fan of Van Jones” Whitman, candidate for Governor; Carly “The fundamental objective [of HP is] to be a good international citizen” Fiorina, candidate for Senate; and of course Governor Arnold “Right-wing crazies” Schwarzenegger. See a pattern?
This is what I’ve been saying all along about the Chuck DeVore/Carly Fiorina primary race for Senate. This is about more than who’s going to be the sacrifice on the ballot this time around. This is about what our party will stand for, and who will get to claim the mantle of speaking for the party the next time our legislative conservatives obstruct Democrat tax hikes.
And I’m perfectly willing to concede our two US Senate seats and Governor’s chair in exchange for strong Assembly and state Senate caucuses, as well as strong conservatives in the US House, free of undermining influences from said Senate nominees and Governor’s offices. We’re not going to win the statewide offices anyway, because if push came to shove the unions and their allies would start running ads with as many lies as it took to win, or to raise the money it took to run those ads, just as the pro-abort forces did to beat back Parental Notification last year.
Just look at the record: We did no better containing spending under Schwarzenegger than under Davis*, this despite his big talk on taxes and spending. As usual, the squish on social policy turned out to be a squish on fiscal policy as well, failing to use the line-item veto to bring the budget under control, instead letting the spending grow until it became a crisis, and then supporting tax hikes and accounting shell games to pretend to fix the crisis.
Outside of the obscure technical offices like Secretary of State or Insurance Commissioner, or the recall fluke which bypassed the base**, with or without Independents in our primaries we haven’t been able to do anything statewide since we ran hard on illegal immigration in 1994. And of course once we did that, President Clinton triangulated on us with Operation Gatekeeper. He did so with urgency in order to keep our precious Electoral votes off the table in 1996. Note that since his goal was only to help California, and more specifically to help himself in California, he did nothing to help Arizona. In fact he just sent a lot of our runoff their way, which is why they followed our path and were a major state in the Minuteman movement a decade later.
And yes, Governor Girly Man has been wide open about his express aims to change the rules to crush conservatives, whom he once termed as “right-wing crazies” and, in the context of impeachment, “an embarassment.” That’s why he supported a plan to change the way districts are drawn in the state, selling Proposition 11 as a way to kick out conservatives who wouldn’t budge on taxes, accomplishing this by spreading us conservative voters to prevent us from controlling any districts. But even that’s not enough to satisfy his hunger to purge us from the party, because now he wants to ensure that we Republicans don’t even control our own primaries.
So sure, I understand why outsiders may want us in California to nominate the ambiguous-on-life Fiorina*** in order to try to kick out the Senate’s dumbest member, but we who live here have more at stake. We don’t want our party to become useless instead of just weak. We also want our party to represent its members, and so must close our primaries to all but our own members. Joining the party is a fast and easy process; why not encourage Californians to join it to vote in a heated primary? Let’s get more people identifying as Republican instead of just dipping a toe into our pool, then pulling it back out later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* According to the Department of Finance, General Fund spending went up from $57.8 billion (1998-1999; Wilson’s last Budget) to $78.3 billion (2002-2003; Davis’s last budget) under Gray Davis, an increase of 35.5%. The budget then grew from that $78.3 billion to $103.0 billion (2007-2008; the last pre-recession budget) under Arnold Schwarzenegger, an increase of 33.0%. Only the Constitutional requirement for a balanced budget forced him to end the good times for government unions. He would never have done so on his own without the recession slashing tax revenues.
** It’s clear to me, from the results of the Recall election, that if not for the Recall in 2003 it would have been McClintock v. Davis in 2006, because the base Republicans backed McClintock while the center-left backed Schwarzenegger, but the latter doesn’t generally vote in our primaries. It also would have been Bustamante as the frontrunner this time but he went and backstabbed the whole state party and struck out on his own in the Recall, only to get slapped down. Now Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, Ronald Reagan’s successor, is probably going to get another shot.
*** We all know that’s what people mean when they call her electable. She calls herself personally pro-life (like John Kerry), but never elaborates. That’s all anybody means when they call a Republican electable in a Democrat-leaning state: squishy on the issues. And abortion is the king of issues in this state. You won’t be able to turn on a television or radio without seeing or hearing Barbara Boxer saying “woman’s right to choose” no matter whom we nominate next year, and especially if we’re dealing with a Supreme Court vacancy in the summer of 2010.
There is a California Republican Party?
Close. The. Damn. Primaries.
Here is Meg Whitman promoting Van Jones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSn37TMXZO8&feature=player_embedded
Wow. That’s the end of her.
We need to stop sacrificing principles just to see an 'R' in office. Virtually all "corporate" republicans are worthless masters of compromise. Let's see them run for assembly or state senate first and develop a record on the issues. Ignore what they say, weatch what they do. I am sick of rich bozos running as "R"s - Homo-effing-ton was a prime example of a donkey in elephant skin using his money for political vanity.
Close. The. Damn. Primaries.
And. Not. Just. In. California. Either.
Not unless, among other things, you want another Lame McCain to take a dive in 2012.
That's exactly what happened in '08 with John McCain in a number of those early voting states.
Each and every time it is attempted in a "red state" the idea always come and is pushed by RINOs who are tired of losing elections to conservatives.
It's treasonous to the party and much akin to "non-partisan" elections which is always political, you just don't identify yourself as belonging to the libbie/commie party.
Exactly.
Yeah, they hold their convention in a phone booth in Salinas.
One wonders. I have been voting here since ‘62. In those days, Pubs actually won some battles. Now the Party is just a loose canon going from one drop to another off the lemming ledge. It would be nice to see one of the bigger names actually stand up for Pubconserv principles. But, that probably will not happen. The Dems do seem entrenched here and the lemming like minorities will just not think hard enough to stop voting for them.
It can’t hurt to have some facts on the issue.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_decline.htm
California has a modified closed system.
Registered democrats cannot vote in the GOP primary. Registered Republicans and “decline to state” can vote in the GOP primary.
Registered democrats cannot vote in the GOP primary. Registered Republicans and “decline to state” can vote in the GOP primary.
This reminds me of the term 'being a little bit pregnant'. If the primary is open to non-Republicans, it's open. It might not be fully open, but it's not closed. Another case where the language has been corrupted.
Nuff said.
I voted for McClintock, but let’s remember Arnold DID try to reform gerrymandering & union dues for political (’rat) causes with that set of 70’s Props. Too bad those failed.
CA politics is under total lockdown, due to the Freaking marxist public unions - greedy bass turd protectionists have the whole state in economic chaos. We have soft tyranny (protected cartels) running the state right now.
It’s like an episode of the Sopranos out here, every day. There is no free trade in major sectors of our state - no outsourcing of state (public) services, no competitive bidding, no policy input from private business in the legislative process is allowed. Total communist rule.
The tax base shrinks by the month. Now, the CA unions have run to the BO Admin, to ask for bail outs. So even if you are a business who has moved out of CA, they are STILL going to rob you for their Defined Benefit Pensions in CA, via the Federal route (increased Federal taxes for these union paybacks).
There is no escaping these CA pub unions. If you are a member of the CA capital flight class and moved to Nevada or wherever, you are still paying for CA unions via the IRS.
4L, in the San Fernando Valley.
Ok, I hate to be a "oxymoron" nazi but, this entire statement is an oxymoron.
You say it is like being a little bit pregnant and then go on to say "it's not open, it's not closed, it's a corrupted language" which wholly contradicts the little bit pregnant part which itself is corrupting the language.
OK, Hillary lost, Hillary's people fought Obama tooth and nail all the way and had no time to "pick" McCain. McCain won because "the great conservative hope" did not appear unless you think Fred, Huck, or Romney was it.
And when you make statements like this, I want to call you a moron.
Actually, it was Gray Davis who did a slash and burn on the moderate Riordin and "picked" the conservative Simon to run against because Simon could be easily slaughtered while Riordin could not be.
Go ahead and try it; you'll end up wearing wearing your own label proudly.
I am not from CA and I generally understand the idea against third parties, but the “open primary” may ultimately force this issue?
Update on the CA GOP decision to open or close its primary.
You have an update?
oops...sorry...I got confused.
Too much margarita...
A couple of days ago, you posted a vanity about the desire for closed primaries for the Presidential nomination. I thought this thread would interest you.
The TERRY ANDERSON SHOW.. Articulating the Popular Rage!
Sundays - 12-1 AM EDT, 11-12 PM CDT, 10-11 PM MDT, 9-10 PM PDT
KRLA - 870 AM - Los Angeles — KDWN - 720 - Las Vegas — KFNX - 1100 - Phoenix
If You Ain’t Mad, You Ain’t Payin’ Attention!”
Terry’s guest tonight will be Tom Tancredo...
Terry and Tom say that the illegal aliens must go home...
Agree ??? Disagree ??? Want to adopt a family ???
Call Terry LIVE 9-10 PM PST at (866) 870-57521
LIVE stream at http://krla870.townhall.com/
http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=listenliv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2333607/posts
You said “We got McCain as a nominee because of open primaries. Hillary’s people crossed over to help pick her opponent and the rest is history.”
I said “OK, Hillary lost, Hillary’s people fought Obama tooth and nail all the way and had no time to “pick” McCain. McCain won because “the great conservative hope” did not appear unless you think Fred, Huck, or Romney was it.”
Would you like to change or amend or retract your first statement about Hillary’s people electing McCain.
Nice theory, but false. The turning point was long before Hillary took Obama as more than a threat to wound her prior to the general election. McCain's nomination was built upon the sequence of events in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Those two states put McCain in a position of being the party choice and what do you know but they both had open primaries with Hillary voters crossing over and voting for McCain while many Republicans crossed over to vote as Democrats! (source)
You DO remember "Operation Chaos"? Those were conservatives without a candidate, thanks in large part to Fred Thompson's bogus fan dance.
And when you make statements like this, I want to call you a moron.
Remember, Hillary went into New Hampshire knowing she was going to win big (source):
At that early stage, Hillary "knew" she had the capital to burn.
Go ahead and call me anything you like, but I really don't need the entertainment of going to an effort of helping you make a complete ass of yourself because it is so easy to show what a disaster open primaries have been for conservatives. You see, I'm really busy doing the hard work of undoing the damage the RINOs favoring open primaries have inflicted, particularly here in California. So far, you haven't even articulated a premise, posited a set of metrics, or offered supporting evidence. So at least to this point, you've already made it an easy job.
The democrat primaries all had proportional representation.
That means, EVERY VOTE REALLY DOES COUNT, AND MARGIN OF VICTORY COUNT. Winning 55-45 really is better than winning 52-48.
Hillary got killed in Iowa and was in desperation mode for the entire campaign.
There is no way in hell Hillary helped McCain and your sources do nothing to change that.
Continuing to argue that, in my opinion, makes you look stupid, stupid enough for me to conclude in my opinion, yeah, you are a moron.
My suspicion is that the staytrue account can't recite the order and outcome of the first 15, national, partisan primaries held during the 2008 federal election cycle.
I further suspicion that staytrue, like many partisan bystanders, wasn't even paying attention as the angry little man racked up early victories in northeastern crossover states while the drive-bys hyped the internecine conflict going on inside the GOP.
Maybe you can tell me the conservative candidate in 2008 that (or 2004, 2000, 1996,1992, 1988,1984,1980) who got cheated by primary system ?
2008 Presidential Primary/Caucus Dates
JANUARY 2008
• January 3: Iowa
• January 5: Wyoming (R)
• January 8: New Hampshire
• January 15: Michigan
• January 19: Nevada, South Carolina (R)
• January 26: South Carolina (D)
• January 29: Florida
FEBRUARY 2008
• February 2: Maine (R)
• February 5: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho (D), Illinois, Kansas (D), Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana (R), New Jersey, New Mexico (D), New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia (R)
• February 9: Louisiana, Kansas (R)
• February 10: Maine (D)
• February 12: District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia
• February 19: Hawaii (D), Washington, Wisconsin
MARCH 2008
• March 4: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
• March 8: Wyoming (D)
• March 11: Mississippi
APRIL 2008
• April 22: Pennsylvania
MAY 2008
• May 6: Indiana, North Carolina
• May 13: Nebraska, West Virginia (D)
• May 20: Kentucky, Oregon
• May 27: Idaho (R)
JUNE 2008
• June 3: Montana (D), New Mexico (R), South Dakota
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Hillary got snookered in Iowa, not killed, and every pro in the business knew it. You bought the company story, hook, line and sinker. Iowa was no matter of "proportional representation." If you don't know that, you are an idiot. If you do you are a liar. (Yes, I know that Iowa is not a primary, but your association was by implication of equivalence.)
RINOs gave us Bush I, II, Arnold, and goodness knows how many other disasters. With them, they take over the Party machinery with which to preclude any conservative from getting traction, both with party funds and with media. Witness Arnold's withholding party funds to all conservative statewide candidates in 2006 with the predictable result of several narrow losses. As a result, the Party was virtually destroyed, and perhaps the Republic with it. To pretend that "victory" beats any other outcome at that point, is psychotic. RINOS aren't interested in real political victory, they want money for their corporate sponsors with which the Slave Party mediots beat us over the head when they inevitably get caught.
In 2008, I blame Fred Thompson (a closet globalist) for having split the conservative base, thus preventing Hunter from gaining any traction. Thompson had NO INTENTION of running seriously; it was all just a tease. In fact, although he had a conservative voting record, he never took the hard road when pushed to make a critical decision.
Now, I know you will scoff like the RINO pig you are, but traction in early primaries is all the difference between a mainstream Republican candidate and an also ran.
You said “Iowa was no matter of “proportional representation.” If you don’t know that, you are an idiot. If you do you are a liar.”
We are talking about the primary system.
I challenge you to name a conservative presidential candidate who got cheated by the primary system. You can’t name any.
and you are embarassing yourself with your comments.
AND I SPECIFICALLY SAID:
“The democrat primaries all had proportional representation.”
Instead of pission on the primary system, why don't you go and piss on Fred Thompson and his supporters instead.
Great!
Some political truths ... even for RINOs
1) US elections are purchased, not won... in the first 3 months of the cycle.
2) Everyone wants to be part of a winning team so they can exert influence.
3) December contributors exert more influence upon the winner than June money.
4) Early primaries qualify candidates for campaign contributions, not November votes.
5) Meaningful campaign contributors represent <3% of the voters. Most don't vote.
Knowing the game, the RNC tolerated the proliferation of early, cross over primaries to assure a RINO outcome. The tent was spread large and an angry little man emergered from the rear flap.
I say the primary system has delivered our best candidates including McCain and Dole.
I challenge you to name the conservative candidate that got screwed out of winning by the primary system.
(people like to laugh at stupidity, if you name Duncan Hunter, everyone will enjoy a good laugh.)
Well ... I can't argue with your assessment. McCain, while a disastrous mistake for the GOP who split the party and essentially ran as a third* party candidate, was the best candidate the RNC system could muster. Had the RNC primary system been closed, McCain certainly would not have prevailed.
conservative candidate
I saw no remaining conservative candidate after day 6. I suspect that Congressman Hunter got into the fray as a protest against the RNC and don't consider him a victim of their open primary scheme.
laugh at stupidity
It was encouraging for me to witness that by June 2008 many conservatives had deserted the GOP and a good number were rebelling against their candidate. For my part, McCain represented a greater threat to our system than did the Democrat interloper. McCain was the enemy from within. Time has proved me correct. The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is suspected by all sides and his agenda has been clearly identified as alien.
But make no mistake. If there is armed rebellion in the US in the next 3 years, the GOP's open primary scheme, a naked ploy to moderate the base, will have played a significant role in that pursuit of freedom.
* Republican National Committee Elite; RNCE
Name the candidate that would have prevailed.
McCain represented a greater threat to our system than did the Democrat interloper.
You are delusional. Justice Sotomayer alone proves that.
No crystal ball but certainty that McCain would have fared poorly in partisan primaries. He simply wasn't suitable POTUS material in the GOP trenches. Too old, too angry and too contemptuous of the Bill of Rights.
Justice Sotomayer alone proves that.
McCain's opposition to the nomination came a day before the hearings. A hallmark of a calculated, partisan, not core, philosophical decision. The eleventh hour supposes follower, not leader.
You are delusional
The arguments staytrue has presented thus far certainly can be interpreted as a fair opinion; from a partisan standpoint. The problem is the forum. If this were FreeRepublican, I suspect that staytrue's opinions would be more graciously tolerated.
But this isn't FreeRepublican and the membership has a moral responsibility to repulse moderate partisans. Our society, our political system, our freedom and our sovereignty depends on it
you said “The arguments staytrue has presented thus far certainly can be interpreted as a fair opinion; from a partisan standpoint. The problem is the forum. If this were FreeRepublican, I suspect that staytrue’s opinions would be more graciously tolerated.
But this isn’t FreeRepublican and the membership has a moral responsibility to repulse moderate partisans.”
I will quote the Dixie Chicks right before their careers imploded “We are going for a smaller cooler group of people who get it”.
I will add that you seem to want a purified echo chamber where the only comments are “you’re right, you’re right, you’re right”
“The War for the California Republican Party “
Too Late. The Republican Party morphed into the Democrat Lite Party long ago.
Amen. Most partisans don't get.
I spent a good part of the summer of 2008 speaking out against John McCain and the Republican Party that bore his corpse. Most Republican partisans thought the action treasonable. From their view point, I was aiding and abetting the enemies of our republic. For not a second, did they realize that they had become the enemy.
The grand irony is that almost all partisan Republicans may soon owe their personal freedom to that smaller, cooler group of people who get it; the conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.