CA: State GOP split on who should vote in primary - Keeping independents out causes controversy

San Diego Union - Tribune ^ | 3/10/07 | John Marelius

[NormsRevenge]

“At the end of the day, this really is an issue of who it is that should be choosing a Republican nominee,” said Jon Fleischman, Southern California party vice chairman and publisher of the popular conservative blog FlashReport. “And it's pretty common sense that it would be Republicans that would do that.”

---

Common sense? In the Ca GOP?

Wait until the TWirPs chime in.

[NormsRevenge]

I guess Duf thinks he's still running things.. Beat it, Duf.

[SmithL]

Freedom of Association includes being able to choose who you don't want to associate with.

[goldstategop]

Do we really want to allow liberals - and those too lazy to join our party and commit to its principles to select our candidates? I think the answer is obvious.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[o_zarkman44]

People should always be independent as a voter, based on the individual belief first. Showing loyalty to one of two major partys is like signing a blank check to frick or frack.
I say keep the independent vote out of the GOP primary.
What is good for one party is not always best for the direction of one nation under God.

I for one am an Independent voter. But I hate settling for two choices because that is where the big money is at.
Of Course, I am in Missouri so what California does is usually lost to the rest of America in terms of common sense.

[PeteB570]

People want to vote in a republican Primary? Then they should register as a Republican. Otherwise they can vote in the "independent primary".

[CindyDawg]

This is true but the party should not expect it's friends to vote R in the election, if they snub them at the primaries.

[CindyDawg]

What does a card mean? I'm an Independent but more republican than some of the Republicans I know.

[SeaBiscuit]

"Democrats say they are happy to include voters who “decline to state” a party affiliation.."

They'd be happy with dead people, felons serving time, mass murders, illegals of all sorts, China...etc. etc.

[CindyDawg]

I wonder if this is to keep conservatives from voting for Duncan Hunter or his like. This is Calif, I understand, but Independents have been able to vote in the primary up until now. What's changed?

[PeteB570]

Then register to vote as a Republican.

It's more than just a card. The primary is for the different voices of "the party" to speak up.

Don't want to stand up and be counted as "one of the party" then go do something else on primary day.

Not throwing rocks at you but I shake my head at people who don't want to be counted in the party except on primary day.

[Jack Black]

“Delegates are completely meaningless,” said Republican analyst Tony Quinn. “The national convention is a big party. They don't matter anymore.”

Not! The delegates elect the nominee, still. What has happened in the last half dozen elections is that MSM hype has driven a consensus candidate to capture enough votes (by winning enough primaries) that the conventions are just the party to celebrate.

But there is no assurance that this will always happen. One of the more intriguing possibilities of the current shifting of primary dates to all be in early Feb. is that the media can't shape the story effectively. Instead perhaps several strong regional candidates will emerge - Guilliani in the mid-atlantic, Romney in mormon country, Hunter in the west. It is possible we could get to a situation where no one candidate has enough votes to win on the first ballot.

Then Mr. Quinn will quickly learn that delegates matter and the convention is more than a big party.

[calcowgirl]

“The reason is a change of this magnitude should be contemplated by the whole membership, not by the party's executive committee,” he said. Besides, Nehring said, a rule change at this late date would not be considered on its merits. “When you're already in a presidential cycle, it invariably leads to speculation of who it benefits and who it doesn't. And that overwhelms the process,” he said.

Not knowing much about our new chairman (Nehring), I've been skeptical of him (based solely on his undeserving praise for Sundheim and the Guber). Well, mark a big X in the positive column for these statements. I am greatly encouraged. Now, I hope he continues to have the backbone to stand by those comments.

[CindyDawg]

I understand. I'm not in to crashing parties but I've always been invited before. You make a good point though. I'll think about it but I won't vote for a liberal candidate, even if R is stamped all over his body. Or I could vote Democrat against Hillary, in the primary. Would that help?

[ChildOfThe60s]

Why should anyone other than Republicans choose the Republican candidate?

If anyone can vote in it, then it's not a primary, it's a semi-general election. We should just skip primaries and have everyone that wants to run, run in a gigantic general election with a series of run offs to narrow the candidates down until we have two for the final election.

The fact that we are even having a discussion on this is an indication of how bad things are.

[PeteB570]

"Would that help?

What would help was you working for the guy you want at the start of this mess called a primary season. Be he/she a Democrat, Independent, Green, Republican or what ever. Work to get that person on the big ticket.

At the end of the primary season look at who made it. Look at how they stand on all the issues that are important to you and then VOTE!

My issues are Guns, Taxes and then everything else. And I will vote for the lesser of two evils just because it is better than the greater evil.

[CindyDawg]

We probably have the same list. Abortion is at the top of mine though. As for the other....I am. I'm supporting Duncan Hunter. That's why I'm here.

[ansel12]

"Do we really want to allow liberals - and those too lazy to join our party and commit to its principles to select our candidates?"





Arnold is our Governor, Rudy is the front runner, what are the principles of the California GOP?

[calcowgirl]

The California Republican Party has already changed its presidential primary procedures in one respect. Next year, the delegates will not all go to the winner of the statewide popular vote. Rather, they will be apportioned to the winners in each of the 53 congressional districts.

The winner of each congressional district would get three delegates, meaning that Republican John Campbell's district in Orange County that has 200,000 Republicans would be worth the same as Democrat Xavier Becerra's district in East Los Angeles that has only 27,000.

Is this the way the liberal candidates will game the primary? I'm not buying Pitney's explanation.

[ElkGroveDan]

Is this the way the liberal candidates will game the primary? I'm not buying Pitney's explanation.

This is a great change in the way we select delegates in California. Instead of candidates simply running commercials in LA and the Bay Area to get hit the most voters at once for the winner-take-all goal, now they will have to get out into every corner of the state and campaign. They can still run their commercial in LA where the most districts are, but a guy like Duncan Hunter can go work the rural districts in Northern and Central California for the true conservative voters.

This change was put forward by former State Senator Ray Haynes and Placer County Chairman Tom Hudson, that makes it miles from any kind of RINO or establishment conspiracy. It's a good thing.