For Senate Democrats, Southern Collapse Delayed, Not Avoided

"Joel was a really nice guy, a great father, and a true statesman. He might have felt okay in the Democratic Party...he was a Republican at heart. His politics reminds me of Jeffords...born a Republican...but always skirted the edges."

Unfortunately, when you tend to go in that direction, you end up being out of step with the party. When the 'Rats decided to jettison most of its Conservatives, we had to take up the slack, and most of the liberal Republicans were more comfortable advancing the agenda of the 'Rats so why they would choose to remain with us ? It turned out that Jeffords, despite earning a very low ACU rating as a Republican, was voting too "rightist" for his own tastes and when he decided to leave the party, he was free to vote his own instincts, and now votes with the extreme left-wing, almost indistinguishable from the VT nitwits Leahy and Sanders. It's amazing that in the past, when the parties had more ideologically diverse elements within each, that anything was ever accomplished at all in Congress. The "bipartisanship" mentioned that is "valued" so highly by the media, was a necessity then since you had a large segment of your party that wasn't going to vote for a bill of a certain ideological stripe. I read something years ago that there was talk of a party alignment in the '30s between Conservative Republicans and Southern Democrats, but the chasm between the two (despite being in sync on issues such as Communism and against parts of the "New Deal") on issues of race and the latter's hatred of the GOP itself, made that alignment impossible for decades to come. Forgive me, I'm rambling here... Basically what I'm saying is that I've come to expect the GOP to uphold the Conservative agenda, and when they don't and veer into leftist territory, I have no use for them. Getting back to what I mentioned awhile ago, it's unfortunate that social issues have had to come to dominate the agenda in the last 30 years, both parties once used to be in agreement on this (on traditional values and its importance to maintaining national stability), and more battles were fought on who had better plans to improve economic conditions, but when the other party started to pander to the lowest common denominator, it just was one more set of battles that had to be fought. We all knew better on this business prior to '65, and shame on those that have created the situation for these battles to have had to been fought at all. :-(

"Peggy will do okay...but I tend to lean a lot towards the liberterian tendancies of Lora Petso. I don't know yet...we shall see."

It still kinda sounds like you're leaning towards the incumbent there... ;-)

"I may have to agree with you. I would like to have a real R in the office sometime before I move away from this state in disgust. You are right about Cascadia...constitutionally, I think it is prohibited, but I am sure it hasn't prevented them from trying to escape. I wish I could escape too, but I hate the hot weather on the east side of the mountains."

Does it get that hot up there ? I unfortunately haven't been up to the Pacific Northwest, but I hope to visit it sometime. As I pointed out in another post, my half-sister was born in Bremerton, just across Puget Sound from you. My father and his first wife was stationed there while serving in the Navy, and he was there for the famous Century 21 '62 World's Fair. Much better place in those days I hear, as a lot of things were... :-(

"You metro council really needs to be shrunk...The King County Council is going through some motions to remove two members (I believe that they 13)...they want to trim down to 11...I think that is a lot, but what do I know. Snohomish County that is growing really quickly has five (and right now in Republican Control for the first time in years)."

There's been some suggestions about downsizing, but that's a very controversial subject. You see, with the 40 members (35 district members, 5 at-large), you can have a personal relationship with your member (they represent roughly 16,000 people each). If you were to shrink that to 10, or perhaps even 5, they become further and further removed from the people. We, unfortunately, were saddled with a member (and my district has undergone umpteen redraws because of its location as the population distribution of the county has changed) who lived a distance away from us and couldn't care less about the damage that rezoning of the area near my home created. I soon suspected this person might've been offered a bribe, but nothing I could prove. I was working with another person in an attempt to recall this person (at the same time, another recall was underway against another member disregarding the will of his constituents), but I was warned by our former Councilman (who was now serving in another district) that if I tried to do that, they'd circle the wagons around her (corruption or incompetence aside). It turned out the recall efforts were a joke, and that you needed something like 10,000 signatures of registered voters in order to get it on the ballot (there are not 10,000 registered voters in this district, the way the recall laws were worded, that you need a percentage of the entire COUNTY vote, that means getting sigs of people that don't live in this district or even KNOW the person !). Since corruption on behalf of the 'Rats goes without saying and is often well-rewarded, this person was just elected our brand-new State Representative (and the son of the Councilman who threatened me is our brand-new Sheriff). God bless America.

"Joe did run for the right to serve another year. Heavy union money and support outed Joe. I served as a PCO that nominated him to fill the vacancy created by Renee Radcliffe's resignation for health reasons. He was not my first choice (I supported my candidate, Stan Monlux, who I had worked as his campaign manager during the 2000 election.) Joe was a good alternative, learned quickly, and did a great job."

Forgive me for being slightly confused here... You guys may have a different process up there (I assume nominating conventions, is this correct ?). Was he running for Congress and that State House seat at the same time ? I didn't think you could do that (surprisingly, you can do that here, but I think that's only allowed in primary contests). I have someone named Michael Huisman listed as the GOP nominee against Sullivan.

"It was a Democrat slide through. Brian Sullivan is a Democrat, but really a very solid fiscal conservative. He is not owned by the labor unions unlike his counter part Mike "I'm a firefighter" Cooper. Brian is about as good as they come (honest and hardworking) and it has been rumored that he may switch parties. Brian's primary opponent is now running for county council."

Heh, I noticed Sullivan was born in Butte, Montana. You would think coming from there that he would be joined at the hip to the unions !

"I agree about Slade. His comeback in 1994 was exceptional..."

You mean '88, don't ya ? :-) Just to realize how much the 'Rats have dominated the state (at least in regards to the Senate seats), Slade's '94 victory was the first time since Wesley Jones in 1926 that a Republican won a consecutive term. Only one Republican was elected in the state between 1932-1980, and that was native Nashvillian Harry Cain (does that mean I might have better luck as a Republican in WA ?) in '46, but he lost reelection to Scoop Jackson in '52. It's ironic to realize the GOP dominated the House delegation from the '40s until 1965.

"I worked on his campaign and met him and his campaign manager Mike McGavick several times. Both class acts at their own accord. Certain members of the Party are now actively trying to recruit Mike to run for either Senate or Governor. He would be great."

Well, if he's got the fire in the belly, he should go for it.

"Thanks again for your take."

Sure thing. Now if only I could learn to make my posts a tad more... short. :-P

I think the idea was to join Eastern WA and Eastern Oregon.

Although that would doom Oregon which we can win

You are pretty sharp...you seem to know quite a bit about Washington State...having never been her before. It is amazing how much information can be found on the internet and if you take the time to read.
I would probably never make it a day as a Republican in certain areas of the country. My liberterian strains make me consider certain political issues irrelevant. Many of my fellow Republicans in my neck of the woods tend to be "gun-nuts" or "fundamentalist Christians". I am glad to have many of these votes come election day, but I differ dramatically on many social issues. I find we can agree on many social issues, but our methodology is very different. I believe many of the Washington State Democrats in the past could not stand to be in that party now. It has been taken over by the socialist nuts, environmental tree huggers, or victims of society. That is what composes most of the Democratic Party in this state. The "gun nuts", "fundamentalist Christians", "one issue voters" seem to be the core of the Republican Party. Fiscal conservatives like me tend to be deemed RINOs, moderates, conservative Democrats, etc. I consider myself to be a moderate on many issues, but when it comes to fiscal policy...I am pretty conservative. I agree that both parties at least played lip service to morality and family values in the past...the Democrats seem to have completely shelved it during the last couple of decades. Many Republicans are still playing lip service to it and a even fewer number of them are still addressing many of these issues. My opinion is that morality should be taught at home or in the churchs...Laws should be structured to allow individual choice as much as possible with harm (physical, finacial, moral, spiritual, mental) on our fellow man/woman.

As for the city council race...luckily I still have some time to be non-committed. I can sit back and watch and wait, but this is a little difficult as I am a PCO and an Area Captain for the Republican Party. I tend to get solitications for help/money often. Luckily we have a couple of very heavily contended County races and other city council races that I can divert my attention to.

Wow, sounds like politics are personal in your neck of the woods. I guess they are everywhere. I tend to follow politics like some people follow college football. I had predicted the outcomes of most of the races weeks before they happened in 2000 and 2002. It blows my liberal brother away that I know so much about some of the political races closer to his home (he lives in D.C....the other Washington).

The Joe Marine race was really interesting. Immediately following a State House Race, the newly reelected State Rep announced her resignation. The PCOs in the district were able to select three names of local Republicans to submit to the County County to determine who her replacement was going to be. Joe Marine, a current city councilman and council president from Mukilteo was selected as our top choice. The County concurred and appointed him to a one year term. After than year was over, he had to run for the seat on his own accord. He ran against Brian Sullivan, a local restraunt owner. Brian won. A year later, Joe Marine ran for Congress against Jay Inslee because no one else was going to run against him and he did not want Jay Inslee to run unopposed. I have not heard what his future plans are...hopefully not running for Congress again. That was a lot of work. No one was going to run against Sullivan so Huisman ran a very limited campaign. I was redistricted and now live in the 32nd legislative District and didn't get to vote on that race. Honestly...I would probably have voted for Sullivan as Sullivan was the conservative in this race. Huisman is an extremely liberal Republican fiscally speaking. So no, Joe did not run for State Rep and Congress at the same time. He was appointed to one year as a State Rep and defeated on his first bid for public office.

Yes, I did mean 88. I was in a hurry and did not verify the facts and wrote off my memory. That was something I should never do. I tend to write at work and I get interrupted too often as I write so I don't spell check or reread what I write...sometimes it is embarrassing...but that's okay.

What's your take on Frist? I thought he was Presidental material...but some of things he has done or not done does not make him look very Presidential.

"You are pretty sharp...you seem to know quite a bit about Washington State...having never been her before. It is amazing how much information can be found on the internet and if you take the time to read."

Heh... yup. :-)

"I would probably never make it a day as a Republican in certain areas of the country. My liberterian strains make me consider certain political issues irrelevant. Many of my fellow Republicans in my neck of the woods tend to be "gun-nuts" or "fundamentalist Christians". I am glad to have many of these votes come election day, but I differ dramatically on many social issues. I find we can agree on many social issues, but our methodology is very different. I believe many of the Washington State Democrats in the past could not stand to be in that party now. It has been taken over by the socialist nuts, environmental tree huggers, or victims of society. That is what composes most of the Democratic Party in this state. The "gun nuts", "fundamentalist Christians", "one issue voters" seem to be the core of the Republican Party. Fiscal conservatives like me tend to be deemed RINOs, moderates, conservative Democrats, etc. I consider myself to be a moderate on many issues, but when it comes to fiscal policy...I am pretty conservative. I agree that both parties at least played lip service to morality and family values in the past...the Democrats seem to have completely shelved it during the last couple of decades. Many Republicans are still playing lip service to it and a even fewer number of them are still addressing many of these issues. My opinion is that morality should be taught at home or in the churchs...Laws should be structured to allow individual choice as much as possible with harm (physical, finacial, moral, spiritual, mental) on our fellow man/woman."

I agree with the Libertarians on some issues, usually regarding government downsizing (i.e. the ending of certain federal dept's. like Education), but part company on a lot of the social issues for reasons I stated earlier. Whether I mentioned it or not earlier, I was very leftist as a youth into my teens and believed the Democrat party would be the vehicle for a Socialist utopia (full-scale redistribution of wealth, gov't ownership of factories/production centers, etc., more fed dominance of other areas of life). I started to abandon these positions because, at the same time, I believed that these goals should be achieved by legitimate, honest means (no subterfuge) and I realized that Socialism was anything but honest, but was indeed, it and its Marxist brother, were the source of great evil, and the Democrat party was enabling its proliferation. I thought Reagan to be, or was rather "instructed" that he was, evil, during most of his tenure. It probably wasn't until he was in his final year in office and the terrible realization of what he was fighting against, what I formerly believed in, was the real evil. It wasn't until the early '90s that I took more of an interest in social/moral issues that I realized that the disintegration of the culture, which had begun to explode about after 1965, was directly tied to a deliberate attempt by the extreme left to undermine every cultural institution in this country (from education, whose undermining began in the 1930s, to Hollywood, to the church, to the judiciary, to Government itself) so they could expand their control into every facet of life. This is one reason I'm very passionate on these issues. The 'Rats, as you pointed out, already sold out on it years ago, and that leaves only the GOP to try to halt it (why I'm frustrated with some Republicans that don't see this as a deliberate undermining for evil purposes, and often aid it, as we saw with the past week's Supreme Court decisions). It's why we can't just focus on the economic issues solely, while the rest of the country is the proverbial frog being slowly boiled so as not to jump too fast out of the pot. Morality should be taught in the church, though with many sects under assault as part of the aforementioned radical Godless leftist movement, and some (such as the Episcopalians, of which I was raised) have fallen to dark forces, it makes it that much harder. Retaining some of my Socialistic instincts, and where I disagree with some Republicans and Libertarians, I do believe the government can be used as a force for positive change (if done properly) and morality CAN be legislated. What, indeed, are our laws if not an attempt but to do just that ?

"Wow, sounds like politics are personal in your neck of the woods. I guess they are everywhere. I tend to follow politics like some people follow college football. I had predicted the outcomes of most of the races weeks before they happened in 2000 and 2002. It blows my liberal brother away that I know so much about some of the political races closer to his home (he lives in D.C....the other Washington)."

Yup, politics can get mighty personal. I'm similarly ignorant about sports, to be honest (and this area of the country is very sports-oriented, too !).

Thanks for clearing up that part on Mr. Marine, I didn't realize that was a special election you were referring to. As to Mr. Huisman being a fiscal liberal Republican, that can be equally frustrating as well (was he a social Conservative ? That sounds more like an old-fashioned pre'-60s 'Rat). It was my ex-Governor "Scumquist" who went AWOL on economics that earned him the well-deserved RINO moniker when he tried to shove a Constitutionally-prohibited state income tax down our throats. Social issues didn't much come to the forefront.

"What's your take on Frist? I thought he was Presidental material...but some of things he has done or not done does not make him look very Presidential."

I did NOT support his elevation to the position, to be honest, since I didn't believe him to be particularly ready (or well-suited for an out-and-out leadership role). Our state has actually had 2 of the last 4 GOP Senate leaders (the last being Howard Baker, whom was a bit of a moderate and left office a term too early, saddling us with a hapless RINO to defend the seat in the Reagan landslide in '84, who lost to Gore, one of only two seats we lost that year, the other being IL's liberal RINO anti-Semite Chuck Percy). Frist may have already rendered himself a "lame duck" by agreeing not to run for a 3rd term (so he'll be leader for, at best, 4 years, as Baker was). I was supporting Rick Santorum as leader. We need someone who can battle the 'Rats to the last man and have the cajones to call the Senate into session at 3am to vote on a Bush nominee. We just have such weak-kneed leaders against the 'Rats, at that is why we end up losing so many issues. The 'Rats may not be in the best of shape overall, but they are so blessed with the incompetency of OUR leadership. I've always stated that we need to copy THEIR style of no-holds-barred tactics and strategy. The American public agrees more with our agenda, so let's get on with it already and IMPLEMENT it, damn it ! If the 'Rats don't like it, let 'em bellyache about it while we pass our agenda and leave 'em helpless to do anything about it. After all, that's what they did to US for 60 years at the Federal level !

Interesting life story. I started out my life as a Republican...back in my high school days...I was pretty fundamentalist, closed minded and tended to be very intolerant. I have mellowed a lot over the years and find myself becoming more and more tolerant of other views on many different issues. My liberterian tendancies seem to stretch further than your own...I support some very limited government...that I draw the line at mandating how people live their private lives. I support the tenants of the Founding Fathers protecting the rights of its citizenry of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If someone finds comfort in smoking a joint in their home...okay by me...if someone finds comfort with a consenting prostitute...okay, but morally wrong. Same is true with a lot of things. The thing that is difficult is where to draw the line. I think that there should be limits on which drugs are sold/used in the United States. There should also be a system of regulation and quality control on them.
Huisman was neither a conservative fiscally or socially. He was basically a D with an R wrapper. In that race...I would have voted for Sullivan since I know him, he is an ethical/moral individual, has worked for a living, and would support legislation much closer to my ideology than Huisman. Since I was redistricted out of that Legislative District...I didn't get to even chose in that race.

I agree with you about Frist. Kind of tragic. I like Santorum...Although I don't agree with his comments (in their entirity), I feel that he has made a stand and is willing to stand up for them. I hope that he will win reelection...that will be a tough race and we shall see. I would also like to see Bush win PA in 2004...that would be the capper. He steel tariffs (another issue I disagree with, but a good political move for the crucial swing states of the Rust Belt)...may tip the balance.

Where do you get your political news and information? Do you have a website that you can point me to on more state politics information. Thanks again...

Cheers

Thanks for pointing that out.

"Interesting life story. I started out my life as a Republican...back in my high school days...I was pretty fundamentalist, closed minded and tended to be very intolerant."

Gotta tell ya, some of those are loaded terms. I know the left loves to utilize them to the hilt in describing Conservatives, but I've tended to observe it's more projection. I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with being any of those things. Having seen things from both sides of the fence, some issues we should be unapologetically "intolerant" over. A few, or perhaps more than that, who proclaim to be "open-minded" are often lacking for the second half of the term. I'm not criticizing you personally, just that the usage of those terms can be dubious at best and disingenuous at worst.

"I have mellowed a lot over the years and find myself becoming more and more tolerant of other views on many different issues."

Heh, well I've been moving more in the opposite direction, especially towards issues and people I believe champion the destruction of the culture... but then, as I said, I don't believe intolerance from my side ain't a sin, but a virtue. :-)

"My liberterian tendancies seem to stretch further than your own...I support some very limited government...that I draw the line at mandating how people live their private lives."

Sure, though the question tends to be where one draws the line.

"I support the tenants of the Founding Fathers protecting the rights of its citizenry of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If someone finds comfort in smoking a joint in their home...okay by me...if someone finds comfort with a consenting prostitute...okay, but morally wrong. Same is true with a lot of things. The thing that is difficult is where to draw the line. I think that there should be limits on which drugs are sold/used in the United States. There should also be a system of regulation and quality control on them."

That's about where I say that crosses the line. I'm less militant on prostitution, though I'm not in favor of legalization everywhere, that should be an individual jurisdiction issue. I'm not sure that's really a positive improvement for an area, though. As for drugs, I have been pro-drug war and don't support legalization (that goes for pot all the way up to the hardest stuff). Not to say I'm not so unbending that modification of how offenders should be dealt with should remain unchanged. I've had a personal experience in my life with a former schoolmate of mine that will make it that I will never support legalization/decriminalization. There are legitimate reasons why this garbage doesn't belong in the hands of the citizenry. To comment a bit on alcohol, of which I do not use, I'm completely in favor of outlawing (as is with cigarettes) advertisement of it. When television allowed hard-liquor to be advertised in the last few years, I thought that to be a very poor development.

"Huisman was neither a conservative fiscally or socially. He was basically a D with an R wrapper. In that race...I would have voted for Sullivan since I know him, he is an ethical/moral individual, has worked for a living, and would support legislation much closer to my ideology than Huisman. Since I was redistricted out of that Legislative District...I didn't get to even chose in that race."

Ah, a classic RINO. That's unbelievable these guys can be allowed to get through primaries. I had little choice in '98 when our incumbent RINO Governor ran for reelection but to support the 'Rat (who turned out to be more Conservative than he, at least on Constitutional issues). Most had not yet realized he was a RINO, but I sure did. If most had, we wouldn't have had to deal with his useless, worthless a$$ for the last 4 years. Sometimes there really are times when the 'Rat is better than the RINO. Really frustrating for me was in the past election when I badly wanted to defeat our idiot 'Rat state Senator who wanted more than anything to be the next Lieutenant-Governor (a position elected from within the Senate, and don't get me started on the convoluted and anti-democratic (little "d") manner with which all statewide offices, save Governor, are elected). After some controversy surrounding his support of Scumquist's income tax, and polling data showing him losing to a Republican State Rep. overlapping his district by a landslide, he pulled a Torricelli. The 'Rats tried to run a woman in place of him as a "moderate" who "opposed" the tax (yeah, right. She was a puppet of the incumbents' and had strong support from none other than Al Gore), but the Republican prevailed (and I believe she was the first GOPer elected to that district since Reconstruction). However, the perverse gerrymanderers downtown shifted me from that seat before the election to a majority African-American district which had no Republican running and the liberal incumbent had no reason to pay any attention to her more suburban constituents. She has no presence out here at all and I'm just as without representation as I was before (and I already told you about my brand-new State Rep.).

"I agree with you about Frist. Kind of tragic. I like Santorum...Although I don't agree with his comments (in their entirity), I feel that he has made a stand and is willing to stand up for them. I hope that he will win reelection...that will be a tough race and we shall see. I would also like to see Bush win PA in 2004...that would be the capper. He steel tariffs (another issue I disagree with, but a good political move for the crucial swing states of the Rust Belt)...may tip the balance."

Santorum will usually face tough opponents, but if the 'Rats decide to run on the gay issue in '06 in a culturally Conservative state like PA, they're going to be in for a shock. Santorum has his base in the old-time 'Rat bastion of West PA (well, post-Depression 'Rat, it was solid GOP before then), but that area is trending GOP and only 2 'Rats are in the area now, quite a decline from the '70s and earlier. It's people like him who have helped bring them on over. You probably wouldn't agree with the tack as economics are #1 with you, but I find it easier to win over the Social Conservative 'Rats in bringing them over and converting them more to a Conservative economic position than vice-versa. I don't agree with protectionism per se, but if you've ever been to some of these areas, you can fully understand why these folks are. When you're talking about livelihoods, it takes on a whole other perspective.

"Where do you get your political news and information? Do you have a website that you can point me to on more state politics information. Thanks again..."

Oh, well, I get it from a variety of sources. Two sites I look through each day, besides FR, are http://politicalwire.com/ (which has a state-by-state option on the main menu page on the left) and http://www.csg.org/csg/default (click on the column at right for daily states news). I'm sure there are many others, but those are two decent ones. I also read the direct AP wires, too. Hope that helps.

"Social issues are political winners in almost every state--not all, but most. More importantly, they are right."

Gore lost his home state of Tennessee because of his stance on gun control and there's no denying it. In fact, the solid south is pretty much linked together more by caliber than anything else. Dems in these states have finally realized just how far their own party has fallen victim to the urban areas and their anti-freedom/pro-socialist AGENDAs which are so opposed to the basic liberties they themselves have enjoyed for so many years. The South just ain't gonna take it anymore!

I blame Andrew Johnson and the Radical Republicans for their agenda of punishing the south with carpetbaggers and scalawags after "the recent unpleasantness." at least that's how a number of the folks in my very southern family refer to the war of northern aggression....the Civil War to most folks. Were it not for this little piece of ugly American history, (a subject I might be teaching again next Fall, lol) the South might've been a Republican stronghold since reconstruction.

I suppose you prefer a Barbara Boxer in CA to someone like Darrel Issa? We have to be realisitic in center-left territory. Playing the purist game can and will backfire.

I am more prone to compromise than probably I ought to be. I had thought that Darrell Issa was sound on moral issues so your dichotomy is not necessarily determinative. I generally favor denying job tenure to poltroons regardless of party. I trust that Issa will vote for pro-life nominees to the SCOTUS and to the other Federal Courts and to break Demonratic filibusters, that he is not an enthusiast for higher federal taxes, that he does not favor gun control. I have heard that he is either Arab or Palestinian. I take it that he does not oppose defense spending and that he is not an enthusiast for Hamas. Why would I have a problem with Issa? He also outs his money where his mouth is, as evidenced by his recent spending to extract Greyout from the Governor's Office.

All that having been said, I do not concede that California is or need be "center-left" territory. This conclusion is usually based upon the assumption that the pre-existing percentage of social issue surrender monkeys is being augmented by increasing percentages of African Americans (not necessarily increasing any more) and Hispanics, particularly Mexican immigrants (legal or otherwise who are NOT social revolutionaries for the most part).

The Republican Party of California has too many Gerald Parskys, too many RINO Reardons, too many Brook Firestones, too many Kumbaya wind tunnels and too many other Muffies, Skippers and Mumsies down at the polo club and not enough outreach to African Americans and Latinos and laborers. Very few in the California GOP seem willing to roll up their sleeves and talk issues with folks who do not look like them or work in similar workplaces.

It is very hard to persuade those in the ghetto and the barrio that tax relief on stock options will make their future bright and even harder when the GOP lacks the simple courtesy to ask for their votes retail in THEIR neighborhoods (not just in TV ads) but take a look sometime at where they fall on questions like abortion and gay "marriage" and the rank failure of the government schools infesting their neighborhoods. Maybe those issues don't excite Muffy, Skipper and Mumsy and those three may even diasagree with the GOP platform on any or all of those and similar issues. That does not mean that California is somehow irredeemably "center-left." God so loves poor people that He makes a lot more of them, even in CAlifornia, honest.

It would please me and many other Republicans to hear the social left of the GOP in California admit what a political disaster Planned Barrenhood Pete Wilson was for the once powerful California GOP. His stupidity toward Mexicans cost the GOP even control of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Remember: Orange County is to Republicans as Cook County is to Democrats. Not after Puddinhead Wilson. Nice work Pete, Muffy, Skipper and Mumsy.

The GOP will get a majority of the ghetto and the barrio long before it gets a majority from Planned Barrenhood or NOW and NARAL. Not that any of these is likely. The GOP can certainly make progress among African Americans and Hispanics easier than it can among the NARAL, PP, NOW types. This is actually what political parties are supposed to do. They are supposed to be polite enough to ask voters for their votes. This never seems to occur to ever-narrowing slice of Americans who are white, affluent, and living in posh suburbs and are nevertheless inclined to vote GOP for economic reasons unlike an increasing percentage of their white, affluent posh suburban neighbors who think that the Arkansas Antichrist is just wonderful and look forward to President Hildebeest who will keep the country hospitable to baby slaughter.

I have no idea from your post what specific issues you would like to surrender in order to get a candidate elected in "center left" California. Let us suppose that you want the party to stop the pro-life stuff and the opposition to Bruce and Lance or Bertha and Gertrude getting "married" and adopting children. Will that be enough in a few years?

After you concede on those issues, will household pets be next? What if San Francisco's dykes on bikes decide to raise the next banner of social revolution and molest German Shepards in the streets with Action News' cameras rolling, details at 6 and 11? Will that be a private matter between the dykes and their "consenting" pets? Will we cater to the "center-left" by lowering the age of sexual consent to, oh say, eight years old?

How about the military? Don't some of Muffy's and Skipper's fellow polo players feel that war is just icky? We would not want to offend the "center-left" now would we? How about abolishing the military? And GUNS! Oh, boy, do we need to concede on that one, right? GUNS are really icky to those "center-left" hot tub dwellers.

Just where do you propose to draw the line? Or do you propose to draw the line?

Would it not be better to work poorer and working class and ethnic and even minority neighborhoods rather than let the tail stub wag the Great Dane?

It is for reasons such as these that electing a RINO governor would set the GOP back substantially and possibly fatally in California, that, if need be, you will have to be punished some more (if you live in California) by Greyout and legislative Demothieves, in order to build further resentment and steam among the populace. Roger Hedgecock claimed on Rush's show yesterday that GOP registration percentages are up all over California. He is not alone in that claim. If Bustamente somehow becomes governor, it will serve to prove that a Demonrat is a Demonrat is a Demonrat sufficiently to wake up even the hot tubbers.

You certainly have an interesting, but I would say flawed, characterization of moderate Republicans. The characterizations of moderates as country club Republicans are no more accurate than the stereotypes of social conservatives. It is true that we haven't done enough in CA in courting the latino vote, but that's changing. Our local young Republican group is involved in voter registration for citizenship swearing-in ceremonies and other outreach efforts. The vast majority of the vote up for play resides outside the "barrios and ghettos" as you put it. It is white middle-class guys and soccer/security moms that decide the elections here. It is the investor class. We absolutely need to be winning more of the White vote in California to make up for the votes lost in the Latino and Black community (which will be true no matter how much we reach out). National security and toughness on crime might be the issues we need to rally that demographic. All I know is that social conservatism in California needs to be used differently in CA than in other states if we're to be successful. Californians need to hear things like "Jobs, Growth, and Affordability". Even health-care and education: not more spending, but better ideas such as reform. These are the issues on people's minds. As much of a headache Snowe and Collins might be, they are given Bush the majority in the Senate. If all we can get in CA is another Susan Collins, I would take it.

I would say his characterization is dead on the money. This too often typifies the RINO "moderates" (sic) in every state in this country. They are very much a part of the problem. You may say Susan Collins is better than Barbara Boxer, and perhaps she is, but Collins has, as with most RINOs, no real positive vision, and on a lot of important issues, she only gives us a MINO (majority in name only) and not her vote. RINO Senators are one thing, and they are always a disappointment, but RINO Governors are an utter abomination. I had one for 8 years, and I'd just as soon preferred a 'Rat for all the damage they inflict. No RINO Governor ever leaves their state or state party in better shape than they began it with. Reference Wilson, Don "Scumquist", William Weld, Christie Whitman, et al. Nothing but disasters.

I served for eight years on the YRNF National Executive Committee and a term as state chairman of YRs in the state where I resided: Connecticut (liberal and coastal when Ronald Reagan was ytour governor) and I am disappointed that your ambitions are so modest and your imagination so limited. Social libertines are not inclined to the GOP for various reasons. We need more voters. Where to get them? Brain-washed college alumni/ae who have adopted abortion as a secular sacrament or folks who work hard for a living with their hands, live socially conservative lives, believe in kicking patoot in foreign and military affairs and believe that the government school vice principal in Bakersfield ought probably to have been kept in jail until his conviction for butchering his ex-wife, his two kids, her third kid and her mother.

The problem is that you do not believe enough in fighting to do the precinct work and the hard job of asking poor people for their votes. Too many Republicans feel that it is demeaning to even talk to poor people with respect. The assumption that they must inevitably be Democrats is convenient to the mindset that recoils from talking to them. My characterization of moderates is inaccurate? No one with a name or a trust fund like Brook Firestone grew up in my neighborhood. What do Brook Firestone, RINO Riordan, Ahhhhhhnold, Gerald Parsky and the embarassing rest have in common? Answer: Too much cash and not much in the way of effective brain cells.

As to all that you know about how differently social conservatism must be applied: your prescription is surrender of social issues on the installment plan. Maybe you think abortion or homosexual relationships sanctioned by government or gun control are OK or the indoctrination provided by government schools are OK. That's not terribly remarkable in this day and age. It also is not and will not be Republicanism. If all you care about is better management or lower investment taxes, and you are willing to surrender on the other issues, you will lose. That is a war that conservatives need not drive to or vote in. We will vote in the primaries against RINOs and there will not be such candidates nominated in most places in the GOP.

If you then want to lose elections by abandoning real Republican candidates over social issue heresies from the party platform, fine. Pay more taxes to Greyout or Bustamente or whomever. The problem is that citizens of sensibility in the other 49 states as well as in California have to live with the results too. If we win, America wins. If the RINOs win, only the RINOs win and Demonrats in policy agreement with them. Another proof that pragmatism is not even pragmatic.

{but RINO Governors are an utter abomination}

Don "Scumquist", William Weld, George Ryan, and Christie Whitman are old news. We have a new batch of GOP Governors who are disappointments, to say the least. The list includes Bob Riley (AL), Sonny Perdue (GA), Mike Huckabee (AR), Kenny Guin (NV), Mike Leavitt (UT), Judy Martz (MT), and Bob Traft (OH). The irony about these Governors is that they campaigned on conservative platforms. But, once they assumed power, they transformed into Spend-Til-You-Drop/Tax-Hikin' RINOS.

Apparently, the RINOS are under the notion that the conservative base has nowhere to go, and for conservative principle abandoned, they gain 1,000 new swing voters. The problem with this political tactic is that you ultimately stand for nothing. You are no different from a RAT or Green. So why bother voting for the RINO when you could get the real deal in a RAT or Green? If these Governors don't get their act together, 2006 might be a bad year for the GOP.

Yes, and we all know what a Republican bastion Connecticut is thanks to the hardwork and determination of people like yourself. You really have to lay off this rich vs. poor thing- you're starting to sound like a bona fide liberal. I will try to "expand" my imagination and meanwhile you can educate yourself on how elections are won- how issues can be downplayed during the campaign but pushed legislatively once in office. If you think you can win in CA on a campaign of restricting abortions, you are laboring under a serious misapprehension. Win any way you can, then legistlate any way you want.

"Don "Scumquist", William Weld, George Ryan, and Christie Whitman are old news. We have a new batch of GOP Governors who are disappointments, to say the least. The list includes Bob Riley (AL), Sonny Perdue (GA), Mike Huckabee (AR), Kenny Guin (NV), Mike Leavitt (UT), Judy Martz (MT), and Bob Traft (OH). The irony about these Governors is that they campaigned on conservative platforms. But, once they assumed power, they transformed into Spend-Til-You-Drop/Tax-Hikin' RINOS."

To take 'em one at a time, I still think Riley is attempting some sort of stunt against the 'Rats, but he's playing with fire. Perdue is, well, governing like a Conservative 'Rat (which he was until recently). Huckabee thinks he knows best, but the GOP has been slipping in AR on his watch. Guinn is an a$$hole, plain and simple. Leavitt isn't much better. Taft ought to be bitch-slapped by both his grandpa and great-grandpa to remind him what it REALLY means to be a Taft Republican. Martz isn't a bad Gov per se, just that she's made some personal errors in judgment, and that's a shame. But were she a 'Rat, all would be forgiven. Bulldyke Napolitano is far worse, wantoning breaking whatever laws she sees fit to and gets rewarded.

"Apparently, the RINOS are under the notion that the conservative base has nowhere to go, and for conservative principle abandoned, they gain 1,000 new swing voters. The problem with this political tactic is that you ultimately stand for nothing. You are no different from a RAT or Green. So why bother voting for the RINO when you could get the real deal in a RAT or Green? If these Governors don't get their act together, 2006 might be a bad year for the GOP."

Yeah, though most of these will be gone, anyway. Leavitt will likely retire next year, Taft can't run again, if Martz runs, she'll be defeated in a primary, Huckabee probably won't run, either (might run for the Senate or quit altogether), if Jim Gibbons loses the Senate race next year, he'll challenge and beat Guinn in a primary (though I'm hoping Lynette Boggs-McDonald would do the latter), leaving Riley and Perdue as vulnerable in a general unless they turn things around (and given that they're only 6 months into their terms, that could happen).

I don't wish to speak for BlackElk, but I think he was pointing out what is now currently wrong with state parties such as CT (he is no longer a resident there). As for playing rich vs. poor, I'm going to have to agree with BE again, my local party is an utter abomination filled with these country-club types. They don't even WANT to win local elections, having quite comfy relations with the 'Rats (often holding fundraisers and neat little shindigs for the little darlins'), and they sure as hell don't give a rats ass about my area of town (usually referred to with contempt and scorn by these elites). They ARE the problem.

As to the other point, no one is suggesting running a one-issue campaign of banning abortion, but those that have little problem with abortion often go hand and hand with liberalism of other sorts. Just "getting your foot in the door" isn't enough. People have to stand for something. Maybe we should stop being so damn timid and tell people what we stand for and WHY we stand for it. I and BE want to win elections, as long as they aren't hollow victories.

{Bulldyke Napolitano is far worse, wantoning breaking whatever laws she sees fit to and gets rewarded.}

Janet Napolitano is the Brunette Hillary. She is evil, and is running AZ as Hillary would as President. God help us if Butch Napolitano ever becomes a judge.

Hitlery would probably make her Chief Justice of the Supremos. That would definitely make it revolution time.