CA: GOP conservatives reconsider effort to withdraw support for governor

SACRAMENTO (AP) - Members of a key GOP conservative group said Saturday they are reconsidering their call for the California Republican Party to withdraw its endorsement of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in this year's election.

Despite ongoing differences with the governor over issues such as the minimum wage and his reliance on Democratic staff members, the Republican Assembly is reevaluating its position based on assurances from party leaders that its concerns will get a full airing at the upcoming party convention.

"We want to make sure our views on specific policy issues are openly discussed," said Mike Spence, president of the assembly - one of the oldest and most conservative member organizations of the state GOP. "We have differences from the governor on some issues, and we want to make sure we are able to discuss them."

The group's board voted in December to ask delegates to the upcoming Republican Convention in San Jose to withdraw the expected endorsement of the incumbent governor. Conservatives have been angered by Schwarzenegger's moves toward the political center since his disastrous loss in the November special election.

The biggest issue was the governor's decision to hire a prominent Democrat - and a former aide to Gov. Gray Davis - as his chief of staff. But Republicans are also uneasy with Schwarzenegger's $222 billion public works building proposal that relies on borrowing; his idea to increase the state minimum wage; and his proposed budget that would spend nearly $6 billion more next year than the state would take in from tax revenues.

But Spence said the conservative group is taking another vote on the endorsement issue. The results are expected early next week.

Even if the organization decides not to change its position, party leaders said they do not expect the issue to receive much attention at the convention, which runs from Feb. 24 to Feb. 26.

"Out of 1,400 delegates, I only know of a handful of people who are taking this issue seriously," said California Republican Party Chairman Duf Sundheim. "The endorsement is not in trouble. We are going to come out of the convention with a unified ticket, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at the top."

Still, delegates will likely be asked during the convention to consider a floor resolution that calls for the party to withdraw its endorsement of the governor. Sponsored by former state Republican Party Chairman Michael Schroeder, the resolution must pass out of a screening committee before it can be considered by the full delegation.

Spence said that while his organization was not involved with introducing the resolution, he acknowledged that if the Republic Assembly withdraws its support, the call to rescind the party's endorsement of Schwarzenegger would be badly undermined.

Sundheim said attention has already turned away from the endorsement issue. Now, he said, members are talking instead about crafting resolutions that would express some of his party's concerns with positions the governor has taken.

For instance, Schwarzenegger wants to increase the minimum wage by $1 an hour over the next two years, but many Republicans do not support the idea. Sundheim said a resolution might be presented to the party stating that Republicans believe that an increase in the minimum wage would be bad for low-wage workers and minority-owned businesses.

"I think there's differences of opinion, but it does not go so far that we are not going to support the governor," he said.

I agree with many of your suggestions.

1) The key is voter education. Features and benefits presented over and over. A consistent message from a recognized and trusted salesman.

2) internecine conflicts should be limited to primaries. Parties have a responsibility to hold open primaries to resolve conflicts democratically.

3) Great political change is seldom accomplished in one election cycle. It took FDR almost 10 years to corrupt the US political process and upset the necessary balance between the three branches of our government.

Here, however, is where we part company on issues:

1) Any change must be in the desired direction. Sponsoring liberals will never advance conservatism.

2) Supporting a party that corrupts the political process will not advance the cause of conservatism.

3) Spreading a myth that a principled politician can't evoke public loyalty across a broad political landscape is at best counterproductive and at worst a cancer that promotes self defeat.

If the CRP persist in advancing liberalism then maybe their usefulness to California has ended and they deserve to expire, replaced by a party(?) that will advance conservatism.

IMO, the tone of your posts are insulting to a whole lot of folks on a conservative forum trying to advance conservatism.

Well we all need to get over what you consider my tone and actually take time to look into the substance of what I state. Nothing comes easy, you have to work hard for what you want and pity parties and self sabotage in the name of a political statement gets us lots Democrats elected.

There is no pretty, easy attractive way to take back California in a quick step. It will take hard work.

We get Republicans with tilts toward the left because that is all the voters have allowed to get elected. If the people were all that gung-ho for conservatism, we would not have a Democrat dominated State Legislature for so long. Occasionally the voters throw us a bone in the Governor spot because the Democrats are so pathetic that the voters use the Gov. spot as a check on the Legislature once in a while.

No one round fights are going to win this State back, we are IMO in a 148 round fight.

I am a logical person and I've seen any progress conservatives has made go back to the Democrats by having at least part of the conservative base make stupid protest votes or not vote.
We have religious folks who decide here and there not to vote, and we get the abortion loving communist in State offices (BRILLIANT AND TYPICAL MOVE).
Year after year you get marginalized third party types trying to siphon off Republican voters by telling us we should be "OFFENDED" and people for that election are offended and you guessed it, AGAIN THEY OF COURSE EMPOWERED COMMUNIST ABORTION LOVING DEMOCRATS BACK INTO OFFICE setting conservatism back years again.

We are invaded by not only illegals, but with liberals. It will take real grass roots efforts and time to change this, not destroying any Republican nominee in a main election. That would be immature political suicide and bowing to communist abortion loving liberals and THAT OFFENDS ME TO NO END.

We need to grow up and stop the repetitive self sabotage and learn to see down the road rather than expect some instant band-aid fix. That does NOT EXIST.

Everything takes time and repetitive small steps forward in battle. We need to stop acting like the Alzheimer's party by repeating all our previous mistakes over and over every decade with protests or nonvoting in main elections.

I can't give you an upbeat feel good message here. It is all going to be long term hard work to take this state back from all these Chamberlains in State power.

Much of what you say is common sense 101. Where we part company is in your contention that only liberal Republicans can get elected, callling people like McClintock "pathetic" (mild compared to past slurs), and what appears to be a hypocritical argument that we should support whoever the Republican candidate is. It seems that this theory only strikes home with you if that candidate is not a conservative.

Whatever progress is made, I agree it will require hard work. But it also requires party support. Good candidates lost because 'leaders' have no vision, no principles, and no platform for which to strive. How can grass-roots supporters go sell the party on Republicanism--take smaller government or fiscal conservatism, for example--when this party is spending more than any of their dem predecessors? IMO, it needs to start with the principles and the platform--not the "they can win" theory of candidate selection.

Furthermore, instead of informative and educational campaigns, these 'leaders' think that soundbites and excessive television advertising is going to somehow bring the sheeple to the polls, blindly willing to follow their popular candidate. It doesn't.

Good candidates also lost because the party chose not to give funds to conservative candidates instead offering more middle-mush candidates that show were not measurable different than their dem opponents. Time and time again, we lose due to that 'strategy.'

And instead of getting behind solid qualified candidates like Poochigian or McClintock, freepers trash them on these threads or try to push other milquetoast candidates instead.

If the state was as liberal as some would like to paint, they wouldn't have passed Prop 187, 209, etc. The party and its people need to unify around an agenda--a platform--not around celebrity or pre-ordained candidates.

Here, however, is where we part company on issues:
1) Any change must be in the desired direction. Sponsoring liberals will never advance conservatism.
2) Supporting a party that corrupts the political process will not advance the cause of conservatism.
3) Spreading a myth that a principled politician can't evoke public loyalty across a broad political landscape is at best counterproductive and at worst a cancer that promotes self defeat.

If the CRP persist in advancing liberalism then maybe their usefulness to California has ended and they deserve to expire, replaced by a party(?) that will advance conservatism.

What I think keeps flying past some people here is that we are in a real war of sorts here.
You don't have your soldiers play by one set of rules while the other foe fights dirty. We have Democrats who for decades have bought the vote and embedded employment in government that is directly associated with voting Democrat in this state.

The biggest problem with the Republican/Conservative direction for this state's current crop of voters is it is about self-reliance and responsibility. That is a hard sell in a state where many voters vote with their hands out from politicians.

Republicans need to embed themselves in the fight and then slowly drag the voters back to the right.
If we keep taking ourselves out of the fight by being 100% conservative before the voters are ready, then more decades of setbacks will continue for conservatism in CA.
Smaller steps from a more left tilt that drags the voters more and more right will be the only successful strategy to change this state. You can't do any protests against Republicans that will change the voters habits. You are punishing the Republicans needlessly if they have to go left to get the vote at this time. I'd rather they do that then get the Abortion Loving Communist in office this year.

We need to build our base from new and younger voters, then we need to drag what we can from our current voters to the right.
We need to stop backstabbing the Republican party in enemy dominant states. That strategy for decades now hasn't worked and we need grow a long term memory regarding that issue about how we fail repeating that behavior against the CRP. We have to some day stop repeating our mistakes in the name of conservatism. We should be smarter that that IMO.

The biggest problem with the Republican/Conservative direction for this state's current crop of voters is it is about self-reliance and responsibility.

Yes, that old self reliance character flaw is a real problem for the CRP to overcome. Perhaps the CRP could employ Zyklon at central committee meetings, suggesting that conservatives avail themselves of a free shower before the meeting starts. The public-private partnerships could set up little tables at the meeting and sell soylent green cookies to go along with the free Kool Aid that Sundheim and Kingsley already host.

Freepers like myself never trashed McClintock before he did strange things during the last election with Arnold.

I don't consider keeping a promise to his constituents to stay in the race a "strange thing." As to trashing, FR is a virtual toxic waste dump.

I always said I liked his issues, but that he needed to self market better because when ever I bring his name up, the people say "WHO"?

As one of the first to begin the "only Arnold can win" campaign (months before Arnold showed up on Jay Leno), you did post that repeatedly on FR threads and despite being given links continued to post things like "never heard of him". Most people who knew there was a recall campaign knew who Tom McClintock was and, as polls showed by election day, he was the most well liked candidate of the bunch. (That must really ruffle Parsky's feathers).

People vote their wallet, so knowing illegals take their tax money, 187 passed big time. No surprise there for me at all.

And the big-spending/big-borrowing/government-subsidies program of Schwarzenegger is something you think they embrace?

The problem is Democrats have their hands in the candy dish buying the vote and the voters have to be trained to understand how unethical it is and why they should be mad at that.

This behavior is not limited to Democrats. It is becoming a well-honed art in Sacramento within this administration.

Its about power.

And greed.

As long as they get the crumbs off the table some Republican leaders have made their peace with Arnold.

I agree, except with a $222 billion spending spree, these are more than mere "crumbs."

This is a state with a liberal electorate and things are not going to change any time soon.

That "liberal electorate" has voted for some very conservative measures when confronted with an informative, educational argument. Until the GOP quits capitulating to the left by offering mushy candidates and programs, and instead offers a clear alternative in the form of conservatism, I fear you are right.

The problem is Democrats have their hands in the candy dish buying the vote and the voters have to be trained to understand how unethical it is and why they should be mad at that.

This behavior is not limited to Democrats. It is becoming a well-honed art in Sacramento within this administration

That was part of my point, the Democrats have greatly accessed their political power to give away jobs and goodies for the vote.
Most of the voters vote their wallets, so we have to go get the voters where they are at. They are being bribed IMO where they are at, so we on some level have to bribe them back and then also educate them about how unethical it is to be taking things out of other people's wallets to pay for it.

What is tough about this IMO is it is like dealing with a child. The child would rather take the easy road with the goodies over the responsible road with the hard work. The electorate in a big part have been corrupted and we have to get down and dirty and move them more right bit by bit.

Well the point I was making was most of these voters are bribed children who either get benefits or high paying government make-work jobs.
That is tough to overcome. You can dream some conservative speech can slide them right, but it won't.

We are dealing with corrupted voters and have to go get dirty, do some of the same Democrat things and then make them go through a withdrawal and slide their politics to the right.

If we flash our conservative character to bribed people Amerigomag, then most of those voters will be turned off. Few like to hear a tough message about being self reliant and working hard.
So IMO we have to go a bit dirty and slide slowly those voters to a place more right of where they are where they will be willing to listen to a conservative message.

There might be some opportunity that could let us make the voters go right sooner, like unions bankrupting the state and more private companies.

You can talk personal responsibility, but to a bribed electorate, they think it means going to their overpaid make-work government job and showing up less than 15 minutes late daily so they can still retire with their 50 bloated union pension.

Therefore, the self reliance and conservative message is best to be hit with the new base. The new immigrants who become citizens and the younger people coming up to vote.
They will more benefit from that message first and are in a position more often to have the pride to GET THE MESSAGE.

With the rest you have to go left more than you would in a conservative state to grab the voter, then slowly drag them to the right more as they start to listen to you.

Getting a California liberal leaning voter to go more right in this state with all the bribery is like asking Libertarians to give up their recreational drug lust, a very tough message for them to accept as well.

...so we on some level have to bribe them back and then also educate them about how unethical it is to be taking things out of other people's wallets to pay for it. ...

How can the unethical try to teach ethics? Democrat handouts are bad, but Republican handouts are ok? Democrat spending is bad, but Republican spending is good? Democrat borrowing warrants a Recall, but Republican borrowing is endorsed?

As I asked you before, how can the big spender Republicans sell limited government? You say we have to get "a little bit dirty." How about "just a little bit of socialism" or "a little bit of gun control?"

A party with no platform and no principles as you seem to promote is doomed for failure, imo.

We can go straight at new voters with a typical approach and they will be receptive.

The problem with others who have been bribed for decades is they are addicted.

You have a group of voters used to taking the easy road.
Come over here and take the harder road is not appealing and will not get their vote.

So I feel unless conservatives are more left with their approach then more conservative states, then all we will cause to get elected are the Abortion Loving Communist Democrats.

You maintain principles and slowly throw things in the mix to move the electorate more right, like teacher accountability and getting rid of tenure.

I think if it is hit hard enough in this state, that the majority of voters would vote against excessive pay and benefits of jobs connected to the state government, including unions.

Meanwhile, for a while I think we are going to have lots of money in with the new higher property taxes a third of the state are paying.

If you wonder what I would want for the state of CA as an end goal...here you go.

No full time support except for the total several physical or mental handicapped. I would make all other social safety nets temporary.

I would require any job connected to the state to be paid no more than the average pay and benefits found in the private sector.

I would dissolve any make-work jobs in the state and would allow vouchers for up to $4k a year for private education for American citizens alone.

I would on the Federal level refuse birth certificates for the children of illegals born here and would make the only education one big tent per county with one teacher that teaches math and English. No HS or College diplomas to illegals.

I would look to unprotected the state and federal parts of the budgets that have been automatically funded off-budget.

I would get the walls north and south of the USA and do scanning of the ground for tunnels.

I would forbid the banks from wire transferring or giving loans to illegals.

Just a few thoughts.

I understand your point and don't disagree with it. The reason for my counterpoint was not to challenge its validity but to point out that it's in a different universe than mine.

I am a political ideologue, not a political partisan. I don't care who wins and who loses in an election as long as the voice of conservatism is not silenced. If that voice is silenced and I choose not to move on, I'll follow the advice of partisans, not with a bag of dirty tricks, but with a weapon, on the barricades, looking for partisans who forgot their conservative principles.

I am a political ideologue, not a political partisan. I don't care who wins and who loses in an election as long as the voice of conservatism is not silenced.

Well most of us consider having an Abortion Loving Communist Liberal Democrat in office as a bad thing. So though no one would ever mind hearing what you consider your version of perfection with conservatism when you talk talk talk, there is another issue. The other issue is that when the talking is over and the primary has concluded, that in the main election you do vote the Republican in, because any other activity would have you supporting Democrats in power.

No vote, a reckless vote for a third party or a vote for Democrats are all the same thing.

If you don't care what your vote does, then you are a problem IMO. You should at least keep Democrats out and give the Republicans a chance to swing the state more and more right IMO.

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.