Ray Haynes Endorses the Recall

By now you may have heard that I have endorsed Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor. I have received a variety of responses to that decision, some good, and some bad. I understand them all, and I believe each of you need to know the reason I made this decision. It was not lightly made, and the result of a lot of discussion, thought and prayer. I take my role as a conservative in the legislature seriously, and my endorsement means something to me. I don't give it away lightly, and I do so only when I believe it promotes the causes in which we all believe. I believe this endorsement is true to those principles.

First, let me give you a little history. There were several people at the first recall rally in February, but only two elected officials, Tom McClintock and I. I believed then, and I believe now, that it is critical to get rid of Gray Davis, and change the direction of this state. I know Cruz Bustamante, we were elected to the Assembly together in 1992, and his office was next to mine. I know that Cruz will just be Gray Davis done over. There will be no change (at least not for the better) in the direction of this state if he wins as Governor. In fact, as an ideological true believer (which Davis is not), Cruz could even be worse in some ways. The prime reason for the recall was to change the direction of this state, not to change the name of the person occupying the Governor's office.

Second, I spent considerable time trying to help make the recall successful. Early on, the recall sputtered. It was moving, but not nearly fast enough. I knew then, as I know now, that once the recall qualified, Gray Davis would lose his job. The serious question was whether the recall would qualify. I talked with a number of people trying to find the money to get it qualified, and ultimately, was one of the people who helped persuade Darrell Issa to put up the money to qualify it (not the only one, and I didn't have to work real hard, he wanted the recall to succeed, for the credibility of the party). Tom was not at those meetings, and Darrell asked me what I thought Tom would do if he financed the recall. I told him I didn't know, but Darrell would have a persuading argument to ask him to step aside, since Tom could not have made it work without Darrell's help. I know Darrell talked to Tom about not running. Tom ultimately decided not to reconsider. Issa is a strong conservative, and was, more than any other, responsible for the success of the recall, but Tom's believed he should be Governor. That was one of the principal reasons (though not the only one) Darrell chose not to run. We lost a solid conservative, who could have financed his own campaign, and got a solid conservative who could not, because Tom believed he was entitled to the Governor's office. This is not a battle over personality; it is a battle over principle. I believe the principles we believe in lost when Darrell pulled out, and they lost because Tom would not even consider anything other than his personal campaign for Governor. We will not advance principle as long as personality trumps principle in these types of disputes. It is history now, but it did play a role in my decision, because I believed I had found the perfect meshing of principle and practicality in Darrell Issa, and the conservative movement lost.

Third, I have attached to this memo a list of the bills signed by Davis over the last five years that represent real losses to the conservative movement. Most of these bills had been on Pete Wilson's desk, and he vetoed them. Wilson was viciously attacked by conservatives (including me) for being too moderate, but he vetoed bills putting sexual orientation in the civil rights laws, domestic partnership bills, every gun bill put on his desk, bills designed to push the homosexual agenda in schools, in our social services, and a variety of other efforts by the left to undermine our culture. But in the last five years, Davis has signed all of those bills. We have been losing badly, and we have to do what it takes to stop it. The attachment is just a small chronicle of those losses, but, believe me, it has been ugly, and it must stop now.

Which brings me to Schwarzenegger. I did not need to get involved in this race, and the easiest, and most political, thing for me to do would be to endorse Tom. Everyone would have expected it, and I would get no heat for the decision. But I believe the essence of leadership is letting your friends know when they are doing something wrong. It is easy to tell folks who have never supported you that they are wrong, there is no political cost to that. Looking your supporters that they are wrong is hard, because no one likes to hear that. There is a significant political cost that attaches to that. If I had said or done nothing, or endorsed Tom, I could have skated through this entire event without cost to me. But, if Cruz wins because Tom split the vote, the cost to the conservative movement in California will be immeasurable. We started the recall, we need to finish it with a victory. If we lose now, and there is a better than average chance we will if things stay the same, we will rightly bear the criticism that we handed this state over to the Democrats for the next 7 years. Our shortsightedness could cost us the entire war in this state. That is a risk I will not take. I have worked too hard, fought too much for the things we believe in to sacrifice them for my political career, for someone else's ego, or for the shortsightedness of those who are my allies. If I believe we are doing wrong, I am going to do what is right first, and let the politics fall as they may. If that means I must bear the criticism of my friends, then so be it. I know if Cruz wins, conservatism is California will be discredited for a long time.

So the question is--Can conservatives credibly support Schwarzenegger? I think so. I put the following evidence to you for your consideration. (1) He is not afraid to call himself a conservative. Many of my moderate friends refuse to even use the word, because they think it damages them. Schwarzenegger used it at the convention, and used it proudly. That is a good thing. (2) Anyone who says that "Milton Friedman is right, and Karl Marx is wrong" has the makings of a good conservative, even if he doesn't understand all of the nuances of the political debate. When you begin with the right base, the rest is simply good education. I know, because that is how I began my journey from the left to my current state of conservatism. I started with the right base, and built on it like building on a rock. (3) On the social issues on which we can have an effect, Schwarzenegger is with us. He is for parental notification in abortion, and against partial birth abortion. In the abortion debate in California, that is all we can affect at this time, without a major change in the law, the legislature, and public opinion. He is with us. He is against gay marriage. Domestic partnerships are already in law, and we can't change it until we change the legislature. By that time, we will have the chance to work on him, and show him the wisdom of our position. The same with guns. There is nothing he would do to make things worse than they already are, and nothing he could do to make things any better in our current environment. His base is correct, that is something to build on. (4) On education, he thinks Milton Friedman is right--that being so--he will come to see the wisdom of parental choice. (5) On fiscal and business issues, we have a clear and outspoken friend. Despite what you’ve read in the papers, he has been quite clear in what he would do to turn the business climate around and he has pledged to end the car tax (See www.joinarnold.com for more specifics.) Comparing all of this with Davis and Bustamante, the question of who to support answers itself. At worst, Schwarzenegger will be benign on the issues we hold dear, and at best, he will be helpful. I think there is sufficient evidence that he will be helpful that I am willing to put my personal reputation on the line in his support. If I am wrong, I will apologize, and do my political penance. I do not think I am wrong here.

If this were a primary, there would be no debate. I would support Tom. Winning or losing the primary, however, would not decide the election. I have never bought into my moderate friends arguments that we "nominated" someone too conservative. It always sounded as a convenient excuse for them to support the Democrat in the general election. The conservative would lose because my moderate friends wanted him or her to lose. That, however, is not at issue here. This is a winner take all situation. Wisdom here dictates a different conclusion than the typical analysis. You have to make your own analysis, but I know that more than one of my solid conservative allies has come to the same conclusion I have. It wasn't easy. I expect to be called all sorts of names by people who I call friends, and should know better. It is, however, my best judgment, exercised on behalf of the principles I hold dear. The only reason I fight the fight I fight in politics is to advance the principles of family, freedom, and free enterprise which we all share. I will continue that fight as best I can with the tools available to me, regardless of the outcome of the recall. I will stand with you again on all those fights, no matter who is Governor, and if Schwarzenegger wishes to fight us on those principles I will stand with you. No matter what happens, let us pray that God will take mercy on this state, and help us change its direction. We cannot go much further down the road on which we are traveling.

AB 1001 grants homosexual “protected status” under the civil rights laws. This means that legal protections, including preferences, quotas, and set asides granted to racial minorities, would be granted to those practicing, or “perceived to be” practicing homosexual behavior.” CHAPTERED

AB 26 awards official government status to “homosexual partners,” and grants authority to public agencies to cover these “partners” the same way they cover spouses in health insurance. CHAPTERED

AB 25: Among the rights, privileges, and standing this bill would provide domestic partners consistent with the rights, privileges and standing of spouses are: the right to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress; the right to assert a cause of action for wrongful death; the right of a domestic partner to adopt a child of his or her partner as a stepparent; the right to receive continued health care coverage (including the right of his or her child to receive coverage) because he or she is a surviving beneficiary of the deceased employee or annuitant; the right to make health care decisions for an incapacitated partner; the right to nominate a conservator, be nominated as conservator, oppose, participate, file various petitions in the conservatorship, and to receive all notices relevant to conservatorship proceedings, including temporary conservatorships, involving his or her domestic partner; the right to receive an allowance from the estate of a conservatee who is his or her domestic partner, to pay for basic living expenses during the conservatorship, in the same manner as a spouse and the minor children of a conservatee are entitled; the right to jointly purchase real property with a conservatee who is his or her partner and to receive gifts from the conservator upon court approval; the right and priority of his or her nominee to be appointed conservator equal to the right and priority of a nominee of a spouse; the right to be treated the same as a spouse in a statutory will; the right to inherit property from a deceased partner in the same manner as a spouse inheriting under the intestate succession laws of the state; the right to be appointed as administrator of decedent's estate, in the same manner and priority as a spouse; if he or she predeceased the decedent, the right of his or her children, parents, brothers and sisters to be appointed as administrator of decedent's estate, in the same manner and priority as the children, parents, brothers and sisters of a predeceased spouse; the right to be treated as the spouse of a taxpayer for purposes of determining personal state income tax liability; the right to use employee sick leave to attend to an illness of his or her partner or his or her partner's child and the right not to be discriminated against for the use of sick leave to attend to an illness of his or her partner or partner's child; the right to unemployment insurance benefits for leaving employment to join his or her domestic partner at a remote location to which commuting to work is impractical and a transfer of employment is not available; the right to file a claim for disability benefits for his or her partner, in the same manner as a spouse may file such a claim.

AB 2216, (Keeley). Intestate succession: domestic partners. Under the existing law of intestate succession, the surviving spouse is entitled to the decedent's separate property that is not effectively disposed of by will. This bill would extend this entitlement to a decedent's domestic partner. CHAPTERED

AB 2777, (Nation) County employees' retirement: death Benefits to a domestic partner. Any death benefits, optional retirement allowances, or survivor's allowances accorded to a spouse, may be accorded to a domestic partner in certain counties. CHAPTERED.

SB 1575, (Sher) Probate Exemptions. Existing law invalidates a donative transfer to the person who drafted the instrument except from where the transferor is related by blood or marriage to the transferee. This bill would except domestic partners as well. CHAPTERED.

SB 1661, (Kuehl) Disability compensation for family or domestic partner. This bill would establish a family temporary disability insurance program (through State Disability) to provide up to 6 weeks of wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, domestic partner, or to bond with a new child.. CHAPTERED

AB 17 (Kehoe) Domestic partnerships and State contracts. This bill would prohibit a state agency from entering into a contract for the acquisition of goods or services with a vendor or contractor who does not offer benefits to registered domestic partner employees equal to benefits offered to married employees. Passed Asm floor on 6-5-03 on a 42-32 on strict party-line vote. Passed Sen on a 22-15 vote on 9-12-03. ENROLLED AND SENT TO THE GOVERNOR

AB 205 (Goldberg) Domestic Partners. Extends all rights reserved for married couples to domestic partners. Passed Asm floor on 6-4-03 on 41-32 party-line vote. Passed Sen on. 23-14 vote on 8-28-03. Asm concurred in Sen Amendments on 41-33 vote on 9-3-03. CHAPTERED

SB 85 (Torlakson) Death benefits. Would allow all counties to afford death benefits, optional retirement allowances, or survivor's allowances accorded to a spouse, to give same benefit to a domestic partner. Passed Sen 4-7-03. Passed aSMon. 44-27 vote on 8-28-03. Sen concurred in Asm Amendments on 22-15 vote on 9-2-03. ENROLLED AND SENT TO THE GOVERNOR

AB 1082 (Laird) PERS health care benefits: domestic partners. Would authorize a contracting agency with PERS to provide retirement health care benefits to domestic partners. Passed Asm floor5-15-03. Passed Sen on 22-14 vote on 8-27-03. ENROLLED AND SENT TO THE GOVERNOR.

SB 71 (Kuehl) Education. Changes the Education Code to mandate that students in grades K-12 be provided with the knowledge and skills necessary to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and to encourage students to develop healthy attitudes and values about adolescent growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual orientation, romantic involvement, marriage, and family. Also allows anonymous, voluntary, and confidential evaluation tools to including tests, questionnaires, and surveys containing questions about the pupil's attitudes concerning or practices relating to sex. Reduces the parent notification requirements. Parents would have the right to opt out of the training, but the bottom line is that this type of ‘training’ should be relegated to home and family, not the education establishment. Passed Sen Floor on 23-13 party-line vote on 6-4-03. Passed Asm on 47-32 vote on 9-9-03. Sen concurred in Asm amendments on 24-14 vote on 9-11-03. ENROLLED AND SENT TO THE GOVERNOR.

AB 1250 (Laird) Teacher development. Would allow the staff development allowance to be used for training designed to improve intolerance and hatred prevention. Passed the Asm floor on a 53-2r vote on 6-2-03. Passed Sen on 22-14 vote on 8-25-03. CHAPTERED

AB 196 (Leno) Redefines the term ‘gender’ to include “perceived gender.” Allowing fines up to $150,000 against employers (religious businesses, Boy Scout councils would be effected) that refuse to hire individuals on the basis of gender as perceived from the “victim’s point of view,” which could include cross-dressers and transsexuals. Passed Asm floor on 42-34 vote on April 21st. Passed Sen floor on 7-24-03. CHAPTERED.

AB 458 (Chu) Foster parents. Would create new training requirements for foster care parents, including sensitivity training to homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Last year a similar bill would have forced foster care parents to support, and even promote, homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. (Similar to AB 2651 last year.) Passed Asm floor 46-31 party-line vote on 5-12-03. Passed Sen floor on 23-11 vote on 7-24-03. Asm concurred in Sen Amendments on 48-22 vote on 8-21-03. CHAPTERED.

Thanks for the post and ping, folks !
Great read, fyi ...
Ray Haynes Endorses the Recall
Excerpt:
Which brings me to Schwarzenegger. I did not need to get involved in this race, and the easiest, and most political, thing for me to do would be to endorse Tom. Everyone would have expected it, and I would get no heat for the decision. But I believe the essence of leadership is letting your friends know when they are doing something wrong. It is easy to tell folks who have never supported you that they are wrong, there is no political cost to that. Looking your supporters that they are wrong is hard, because no one likes to hear that. There is a significant political cost that attaches to that. If I had said or done nothing, or endorsed Tom, I could have skated through this entire event without cost to me. But, if Cruz wins because Tom split the vote, the cost to the conservative movement in California will be immeasurable. We started the recall, we need to finish it with a victory. If we lose now, and there is a better than average chance we will if things stay the same, we will rightly bear the criticism that we handed this state over to the Democrats for the next 7 years. Our shortsightedness could cost us the entire war in this state. That is a risk I will not take. I have worked too hard, fought too much for the things we believe in to sacrifice them for my political career, for someone else's ego, or for the shortsightedness of those who are my allies. If I believe we are doing wrong, I am going to do what is right first, and let the politics fall as they may. If that means I must bear the criticism of my friends, then so be it. I know if Cruz wins, conservatism is California will be discredited for a long time.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

This California election is a wake-up call for those who want to revise a system that is based on plurality and not majority voting. In other words, this election is NOT based on Democracy!

California did not get into the current mess that it is in due to democrats alone. The plurality election system also was a negative factor, and will continue to be a negative factor until it is rejected. The election will run its course, but NOW is the time to begin planning a revision, when the arguments and reasoning are in an active state. Even if one's favorite candidate wins next week, the plurality election system will still be there as a negative factor in the next election.

It is interesting to think about the great harm to the election process by allowing plurality election laws to replace democracy, that is, majority election laws.

Point A: It will take a majority vote ( 50 percent of those voting plus one vote ) to recall CEO Gray-Davis, but only a plurality vote to choose a new CEO.

Point B: The true sillyness of this California election can be seen if all candidates, except for one, received exactly the same number of votes. The "except for one candidate" would receive one more vote than any of the other candiidates. Thus, the "winner" of the election for a new CEO for the seventh largest economy in the World would have won with a vote total of less than one percent. The "winner" would thus have been voted against by over 99 percent of those voting. The "winner" would have been chosen by the present plurality election laws.

Point C: It is useful to understand the predominate reasoning at this time so that a revision of the present system can improve the election procedure in the future. Example # 1.) "But, if Cruz wins because Tom split the vote, the cost to the conservative movement in California will be immeasurable." This quote is from the text of this post by Roy Haynes. What it demonstrates is an either-or, take-it-or-leave-it reasoning. It also demonstrates that any candidate who does not drop out is considered to be guilty of splitting the vote. If the right of free speech is so precious, and if the right to vote is also so precious, then what could be more important than to have an election process where each voter could express him or herself by voting for a candidate of their choice? The plurality voting system takes away candidates, by virtue of "doing what is best for the Party" BEFORE the voters have a chance to vote!

Example # 2.) "It's essentialy (sic) for everyone to recognize this is NOT a primary. It's a General and we need to support the strongest candidate in order to end the Bustamante-Davis regime." This is a quote from the reply by jagrmeister. This is an excellent window into the basic differences between democrats and Republicans. The democrats are an idea-bankrupt Party. They bow and scrape to whoever has the best chance of being elected, according to opinion polls taken by themselves, and their lackies: "The Media." Thus, the democrats unite behind one candidate long before the General Election. The Republican Party is a Party bursting with ideas, and candidates to state them. With the current plurality system, the Republicans are discouraged from seeking office if they are not the front-runner in the opinion polls. Thus, the opinion polls, and party loyalty exclude candidates and their ideas before the voter has been given the opportunity to vote.

Discussion: The most important thing is what is best IN THE LONG RUN for the State of California. I have made a case for revoking the current plurality election laws, and passing legislation requiring any public official to be elected by a majority of those voting in that election, or as many runoffs as it takes to achieve a majority vote by one candidate.

Whoever is the "winner" in the election next week will be the focus of the second most important thing: who will be the CEO of the seventh largest economy in the World? Between now and the end of the election our focus should be on the second most important thing, but at the same time be mindful that planning needs to begin now on the most important thing: returning Democracy to the voters of California.

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.