Posted on 02/09/2007 9:38:39 AM PST by areafiftyone
} When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speak at the California Republican Convention this weekend, some party leaders from Solano County will be there and listening carefully.
Approximately 1,300 delegates from across the state are expected to fill the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Sacramento beginning today through Sunday. Among them will be Mike Gomez, the chair of the Solano County Republican Party Central Committee, and Lynda Rose McMahan, chair of Solano Republican Women's Federated.
A busy itinerary awaits the group in the state capital, including the selection of new party leadership. Gomez said one candidate, Ron Nehring, is running unopposed for chair, while the vice-chairmanship is hotly contested.
"I think it's going to be a good convention," Gomez said. "To me, it is always interesting and exciting when we elect new officers."
Situated between major election cycles, this convention is an opportunity for the party to strategize and organize. Local party leaders said it is chance for California Republicans to regroup after a shift of power in the November 2006 election, as well as prepare for the upcoming battle in 2008.
McMahan said, "I'm hoping a sense of unity comes out of it; that we find out what we did wrong in the last election and go about changing it."
While she is unable to attend, Cathy Ritch, the second vice chair of the Solano Republican Central Committee, said "I think it is going to be an important meeting."
"It's a chance for us to get together and look over what happened in the last election," she said. "We're really at a crossroads."
Giuliani, dubbed "America's mayor" after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, has made headlines recently with his burgeoning presidential aspirations.
"I'd like to hear what his philosophy is and how he would deal with what's going on in Iraq differently than what President Bush is doing," McMahan said.
Republicans will have to produce a turnaround in Iraq, McMahan said, to be successful in 2008.
Gomez said he is also looking forward to the lunch with Giuliani on Saturday. He wants to hear the celebrated mayor's views on national security and the kinds of programs and policies he would implement as president.
"I'm anxious to hear him speak," Gomez said. "At this point in time, he's the one who holds the most interest for me."
Ritch said about Giuliani, "He'd be my favorite candidate if you asked me right now."
As for Schwarzenegger, McMahan said she likes that he is bold and understands the necessity of compromise in politics. However, she and Gomez have concerns about his health-care proposal.
"I do have some questions," McMahan said. While she understands what Schwarzenegger is trying to accomplish, she said, "I'm just not sure that his proposal is the best way to go about it."
Other business awaits the convention's delegates, including a vote on resolutions opposing tax increases and another titled "Voter ID for Honest Elections, which supports a measure requiring would-be voters to provide a valid photo ID.
McMahan said she had not had a chance to peruse the resolutions, but Republicans generally oppose tax increases. Concerning the other issue, she said, "I think everyone should have to show ID when they go to vote."
Additional information about the convention is available on the California Republican Party's Web site, www.cagop.org/.
Uhm, Bush is a 'gun-grabbing globalist' too. Should we have allowed Kerry or Gore to enter the White House?
Well then New York, is worth 50? and Penn., Florida?
(I'm looking for the map.)
His social positions (gay rights, abortion, etc.) are pure Cultural Marxism. So is his stand on illegal aliens. So is his stand on RKBA.
And the prize is ... ?
---"California is worth 15 electoral votes.
Do the math. It's a win/win situation."---
Ummm....Sure, for Democrats.
You either get a Democrat who's Pro-abort, Anti-gun, Pro-hate-crimes, Pro-homosexual rights,
or
A Republican who's Pro-abort, Anti-gun, pro-hate-crimes, pro-homosexual rights
Wow. I bet they're shaking in their boots about this election if Rudy wins....LOL.....kind of like we'd be shaking if Zel Miller won their Presidential nod.
Hence the currently disastrous state of the Republican Party.
Should we have allowed Kerry or Gore to enter the White House?
Once nominated, I supported him. I don't support Rudy for the nomination.
---"How many blacks has he assaulted?"---
If it were 100, would you Rudophiles give a damn? Nope.
But it's Pro-Hate-Crimes-Legislation, for the record.
Actually, I believe they were simply lined up and shot, weren't they?
The Gulags were reserved for capitalists and social conservatives.
That's exactly the issue. Why do people expect California liberals to vote for Rudy over Hillary? They're pretty much the same except for Rudy's tougher stance on terrorism. On everything else: gays, abortion, gun conficsation, the UN, etc, Rudy is as liberal, (if not more liberal -- seriously, look at this guy's stances), than Hillary. They'll look at the ballot, see two liberals, and vote for the one with a (D) after her name. The only reason that Arnold got in was because Davis had been given long enough to humiliate himself and everyone associated with him. California is a Dem stronghold, it's not going to go to us for Rudy, or any other rep candidates, unless they're so ridiculously liberal (say, Al Sharpton switches parties) that they stand no chance of winning any other states.
All that having Rudy as our nominee will do is kill off any chance of us getting the presidency. Not that we'd want President Rudy, who would ban assault weapons, pack the courts with pro-abortion judges, restore affirmative action, and sell us out to the UN in a heartbeat. We'd be hearing about our "bipartisan president" for the next four years as the Dems line up to pat him on the back, while cowardly Reps and RINOs feel necessary to "support their party" by backing his policies. At least with President Hillary, we could count on a Republican opposition.
Seriously -- as much as I fear Hillary in power, I'm even more scared of someone like Giuliani or McCain, who the weakcongressmen in our party will feel an obligation to back. Can you imagine our senators filabustering a Giuliani bill? They just won't do it. And that's scary as hell.
---"Can you give a link to where Rudy expresses his support for hate crimes legislation?"---
Sure:
Giuliani Calls on Europeans to Stiffen Measures Against Hate Crimes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1768668/posts
Just FYI:
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3605
The import of some shotguns was prohibited by President Reagan?
The 1994 "assault weapons" ban will sunset in 2004 unless Congress re-authorizes it. All those firearms that were banned because of their appearance (and because they didn't meet arbitrary, bureaucratically defined, and highly changeable "sporting purpose" criteria) are scheduled to become legal to manufacture again. All those magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds will be legal to manufacture again. It will once again be legal to import the group of shotguns administratively banned by Ronald Reagan and the group of semi-automatic rifles similarly banned by the first President Bush. (Both of these executive bans were codified in the 1994 law.)
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20021007.htm
Since the KABA poll was released, additional information has resurfaced concerning President Reagans support for the 1994 assault weapon ban: Kenneth J. Cooper & Ann Devroy, Backers of Assault Weapons Ban Make Final Push for Undecided Votes, WASH. POST, May 5, 1994, at A5. Former Presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan announced their support of the ban in a letter.
With this clear evidence of Mr. Reagan supporting the Brady Bill, a ban on shotguns and semiautos, and a ban on carrying firearms in public, it seems fair to ask:
Why is NRA republishing their 1983 resolution (issued, incidentally, 16 years after he signed the Mulford Act) where they proclaimed President Reagan has forcefully stood by his convictions in support of the second amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense; and
vigorously rejects the myth that gun control is crime control
?
http://keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2955
Explains the Mulford Act:
http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2004/06/16/who_can_gun_owners_trust.html
That's a handy map to keep.
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.