A Case For Changing The Republican Party of San Diego County — Part Three: Where Did Our Voters Go?

Brian Brady Brian Brady 47 Comments

Share

What happened to the celebrated “San Diego Model”?  The premise of the San Diego Model is that endorsed candidates focus on messaging and communicating with Democrats and Independents, while the Republican Party of San Diego County (RPSDC) focuses on turning out the vote for endorsed Republican candidates.

One in three San Diego County voters is a registered Republican. Approximately 36 percent are registered Democrats and almost 26 percent opt to decline from stating a partisan identity. Republican registration used to be much higher, but voters started moving away from RPSDC in 2008. Why?

The Bush Presidency was taxing on our national brand. His big-spending ways drove limited government conservatives away. That and the wars drove libertarians away. New voters thought the Republican party was out of touch with the common man when the financial crisis hit.

Newer voters are increasingly registering as independents. While many registered as Democrats to support Obama in 2008, most voters under 30 think partisanship is a problem and don’t want to be a part of it.

RPSDC lost our volunteer chairman, Dr. Mary Rose Consiglio in 2008, less than a year after she was given the first ever Legacy Award. She was given this award for rebuilding the precinct operation from the ground up.  The “San Diego Model” is, in fact, the legacy Mary Rose Consiglio created and today, she is no longer involved with RPSDC.

Prop 14 changed the game a bit. The push to non-partisan primaries was supposed to make elections LESS partisan; the opposite is true. The reaction was to focus on fundraising since there are no contribution limits to local parties. More money should have increased our communications with registered Republicans. Our strategy was to raise a bunch of money and rely on direct mail to registered Republicans. Abandoning the neighborhood volunteer precinct captain program however, limited our local, trusted communication efforts and contributed to the shrinking number of registered Republicans.

Cultural conservatives believe that RPSDC has turned its back on them by endorsing candidates who support abortion and homosexual marriage — two issues which the Republican Party platform has opposed for decades. I’ve met with a dozen cultural conservatives since the June election and, while I don’t believe those endorsements were made to alienate cultural conservatives, the endorsement process certainly did. Eight to ten years ago, cultural conservatives comprised the majority of our precinct captains. Last month, a chunk of them voted for a Democrat for Congress.

This is a problem. Whether RPSDC has officially banned the platform planks of pro-Life and pro-Family or not is immaterial (it hasn’t); perception is reality. RPSDC failed to provide an environment that welcomed the influence of an important group of people in the RPSDC coalition.  They asked for candidate debates, they asked for RPSDC to delay its endorsement votes, and they asked RPSDC to stay out of the primary. We ignored all of those requests, made the process look rigged (it wasn’t) and eliminated an important voice in the debate.

RPSDC has some serious relationship repairing to do — relationships with people who have long supported our brand in words, thoughts, dollars, and deeds. Money isn’t enough to win elections. Passionate, fire-in-the-belly volunteers — evangelists about our brand — will.

We gotta get those people back and we have to change the way we do business for them to trust us again.

*****

Read Part Two of “A Case for Changing the Republican Party of San Diego County”The Neighborhood Volunteer Precinct Captain

Read the next part in the SeriesPart 4: Rebuilding the Coalition

See the entire series one one page.

Share

Comments 47

  1. Part of defending speech is defending speech even when you personally disagree. On that point, I am in full support of giving cultural conservatives fair debates and endorsements. However, what do we do to earn their support even when a social liberal/moderate wins the endorsement?

    It’s my suspicion that should a cultural conservative win a particular endorsement, most social moderates will vote for that candidate anyway. I’m not sure the same can be said for socially conservative voters when the nominee is socially moderate.

    How can we make our party inclusive of social conservatives and Log Cabin Republicans alike?

    I’ve always liked Hector Gastelum’s saying that the “primary is for the agenda, the general is for the party”. I’m more weary of that in national elections, but here at home we have to stick together.

  2. Right, but the primary wasn’t for agenda in this election. The agenda was decided almost a year before the election when the RPSDC decided to endorse a candidate in a primary without a Republican incumbent. If you don’t give Republican voters and volunteers a voice in the primary, don’t expect us to be there for you in the general.

  3. The way things are going in congress I don’t see much difference between Dem’s and Repub’s.
    Third party is our only hope to try and reunite these states and return to our true values.

  4. This is an interesting series of posts, Brian. I’m glad you’re thinking along these lines. The problems you identify are accurate, and I’d also point to an enthusiasm gap between the primary and the general election. I don’t believe there was much effort made within the party to communicate key shared values (what makes us all “Republican”).

    From personal experience, there was a missed opportunity in the 52nd race. A lot of very motivated, hard-working people were disenfranchised after the primary. A very, very few of them were indeed extremists. The majority were engaged men and women volunteering in the political process. The unity effort couldn’t just be an email from Kirk telling us to get together but probably had to come from the party and the nominee. And it had to be genuine.

    There was a lot of focus on whether the party and its nominee were “moderate enough” for San Diego. I understand the need to tell that story, but lacking a firm stand on meaningful issues (at least some of them those dreaded ‘social’ issues) isn’t a way to drive passion. He might have articulated his differences with the Democrat in the areas that my friends and I care about. Politics is compromise; if we were listened to and understood any substantive difference between the candidates some may have volunteered with the same passion we had in the primary.

    People want to support principled and inspiring political leaders. Political parties are the brands that help us find those leaders, but the brands can become pretty empty absent defining and motivating characteristics.

  5. This is a solid analysis. I see the comments are boiling down to not the PC but repairing the rift between the party and social conservatives.

    But I think we might need a Part 4 Brian! Military-wise a good situation analysis not only looks at “friendly forces” but the “enemy” as well. In this case, I see where we broke down, but do you think if we did these things right it would have overcame the Democrats, particularly in the 52nd? Maybe, but they had some factors to their advantage. The guaranteed union money is hard to overcome while we have to ask for it but in the 52nd Peters really exploited the rift between social conservatives. They also seem to have a permanent block that we just can’t crack and that block just grows naturally whereas we often have to plead our case. I think we need to identify opportunities to learn from what they did right and wrong this time. They have rifts too.

  6. Post
    Author

    In the end, this series should be 6-9 parts. Please keep commenting as it gives me ideas for parts 5-9. Let me start:

    MATT: explain how we might repair the rift with Jorgensen primary voters. What can we do, moving forward, to make you feel like you were art of the primary process.

    ELLIOT: Good comments. Is it worth it to repair this rift? (Inlookers, don’t get offended–we’re doing an after-action report)

  7. 6 to 9 parts? And I thought I was excited for Star Wars 7.

    God question on the rift Brian? But its also a question if the Small govt/ Social Conservative alliance should be something done nationally or locally. Should the local GOP have to conform to what the national party dictates? Should we be bottom up? Should the national platform be much smaller so it allows more latitude for the local parties? these may seem out of scope for RPSDC but really San Diego could start that debate.

  8. Hi Brian,

    I can only answer from my own perspective.

    I think the points you made about early primary debates and improving openness in the endorsement process are great and would certainly be positive changes. But I think the effort must extend beyond the primary, especially when the party chooses another moderate/less conservative candidate.

    Specifically in the case of the 52nd, I’d have been far more receptive to a candidate who (personally) articulated Libertarian positions on social issues while acknowledging their importance, coupled with genuine interest in finding common ground in one or two areas that would make late nights and early mornings something to embrace. For instance, I organized a group of college volunteers for the Schwarzenegger campaign in ’06 largely motivated by the campaign’s embrace and support of the parental notification prop.

    It was very hard for me to determine meaningful differences between DeMaio and Peters. It’s hard to care one way or the other, especially if both candidates are far from you on the issues you care most about.

    This is not about the candidate kissing the ring of conservatives, but 100% about conservative volunteers finding authentic motivation to work hard for someone who wasn’t their first choice and who was (like their own candidate) vilified during a bruising primary. I think there are also questions among conservatives around which planks in the GOP platform are truly important to party leadership and which aren’t. But the process continues and many will move forward given the chance.

  9. Post
    Author

    “But I think the effort must extend beyond the primary, especially when the party chooses another moderate/less conservative candidate.”

    I think we blew that because we didn’t know how to handle it, Matt. All to often, we expect Republicans to “just show up” in the General because, “what are you gonna do, vote for the Democrat?” In the 52nd, some high-propensity Rs did. Lesson learned. Good advice.

    “I think there are also questions among conservatives around which planks in the GOP platform are truly important to party leadership and which aren’t.”

    The answer would be “well, all of them,” but that answer wouldn’t be consistent with our actions, would it?

    Elliot probably has the right idea — a local platform. We defer to the CRP platform but I don’t subscribe to all of it (most notably on the ‘war’ on drugs). I don’t know how we would do that but I’m all ears for ideas.

  10. “I think there are also questions among conservatives around which planks in the GOP platform are truly important to party leadership and which aren’t.”

    The answer would be “well, all of them,” but that answer wouldn’t be consistent with our actions, would it?

    “All of them” is accurate. Meaning all of the planks in the platoform are truly important to the party leadership and all the planks in the platform aren’t.

  11. “Politics is Compromise..”

    It is also conviction…this is the rub. The GOP with which my parents were staunch Goldwater supporters, and I a Reagan supporter, and a former “Chairman Circle” donor and GOP Senatorial County Co-Chairman see the “conviction” part of the political calculus equally if not more important than the “compromise” quotient. For what good is compromise if you forgo your core political (and moral) principles to achieve it?

    If you are a staunch Republican where the party platform does (did) reflect your core values (the whole platform) then to “compromise” on core moral and ethical issues is defeat before a single vote has been cast.

    Brian is absolutely correct…but I will go where he has not; Every leader understands innately that what ever his organization does, or fails to do, is a direct reflection on his/her ability to lead…and thus perform. On the wave of the most significant win for the GOP across the nation in 80 years, the RPSDC failed to put one in the win column. While the debate will rage for years to come on the particulars as to why that was, one thing is painstakingly clear; The GOP, and the leadership endorsing, creating the climate and atmospherics, and conditions, abandoned key GOP tenets in an attempt to appear more “inclusive” and “tolerant”. In “compromising” it lacked its time-honored and track-record proven conviction that ushered in 2010 and 2014. While the “Rovian” wing does victory dances in the end zone, they sneer and snicker at the conservatives that made the difference. However, it was also the conservatives that took a bodacious stand on their well-announced and open conviction on marriage and Life. From the Chairman on down, they were systematically vilified, demonized, and many ostracized. In football, we quarterbacks called that the “look out block.” In this case, the GOP was the QB and the conservatives were the line men who reminded the QB where his bread is butter..they stood aside, and yelled “look out” when the defense came rushing in…QBs quickly realize the errors of their ways and remember for whom they work…can the GOP leadership in SDC do the same thing? Or are they all about the insider cronyism, nepotism, and big donor/consultant class powered by the Big “G” Neo-Progressives?

    The people spoke…if the Leadership and its insider-enablers (The “Coliseum” Clan and poser conservatives like Hedgecock) continue to tacitly or openly defy the conservative base, then they will be forced to voice their concerns outside the Party apparatus.

    If the GOP is seriously addressing conservative concerns, its going to have to go way beyond the surface religious invocations at the beginning of Monthly meetings, and having some pastor come speak, while ignoring them, or an occasional vet for the annual Veterans Day “siss-boom-ba” rallies to craft a perception of true Republicanism.

    A good start would be to see the RPSDC reaffirm its commitment to Life and Marriage as it relates to the strength of the American Family…that would be a clear indicator that conservative Republicans are welcome again.

  12. Postulated:

    Barry Goldwater’s views were closer to Carl DeMaio’s than to Ronald Reagan’s.

    Discuss.

  13. FF, you backed Scott Peters.

    You voted for and promoted voting for Scott Peters.

    Thank you for your interest in “convictions”.

  14. Post
    Author
  15. I hope no one thinks I am being hard on anyone by my postulation. It is meant to elicit some thoughts and discussion as part of your continuing series. Both Goldwater and Reagan are examples of coalition building, but had some stark differences in beliefs.

  16. Agreed Brian..to Michael’s point..I did..and so did thousands of others; arguably tipping the vote from the ram-rodded endorsee in protest to the RPSDC…bold, audacious, even unconventional..but we made our point.

    Now that we have your attention, how would you like to proceed?

  17. You need to be yoked by that Albatross of a hypocritical decision to not just vote for Peters, but endorse him….from here on out. To be crystal clear, Frank, you in no way made a point, you completely shattered credibility.

    Stay home. Go join the Donkey party. Lance windmills. I don’t care.

    I’m all for coalitions, but let’s go after assets. Not liabilities.

  18. Post
    Author

    “I’m all for coalitions, but let’s go after assets. Not liabilities.”

    Michael, I think you missed this:

    “The GOP with which my parents were staunch Goldwater supporters, and I a Reagan supporter, and a former “Chairman Circle” donor and GOP Senatorial County Co-Chairman”

    That’s not a liability; that’s a disenfranchised asset. I’m looking for the whys and how-to’s right now

  19. Michael

    Yes…”bigot”, “homophobe”..”Intolerant”…the same accusations that united the party for Carl’s big win…oh..wait..

    No wonder thousands of San Diegan Republicans didn’t feel and will not feel wanted or needed with such “big tent” bigoted rhetoric like that…and that’s coming from the same leadership that wanted these same “bigots” to unite behind the stale, tarnished insider.

    I used to think it was clever malevolence..I’m afraid it’s just not very bright people.

    …apparently you don’t like it when “outside” forces take over the process or narrative..(sucks, doesn’t it..) and yes, even vote for a weak Dem to protest the poor Neo Progressive choices backed by a small, insider cabal, and then craft the conditions so no transparent or fair judgement by the primary voters can be made..no debate, spreading of disinformation, and media Black Out all orchestrated by the very top of the RPSDC, Wset Hollywood and Palm Springs consultants, and “Coliseum” Chamberman.

    …and you still lost!

    I’m sorry you have resorted to villification again, Michael. See, the major difference between you and me, is I believe in the Republican Party…not fecklessly trying to “win” independents and Democrats by tacking ever so leftward in a failed attempt to appear “moderate.” My “bigotry” is only outmatched by RPSDC leadership hypocrisy.

    If some candiate was recklessly endorsed by the RPSDC, and he/she was everything the “party” apparatus wanted, less his/her position on the 2A, I would have been as ardent and determined…I would have stood, shield to shield, even with you…because that is what REPUBLICANS do..not some watered down, PC, Big G fueled shell of the GOP that walks such a thin line in its muddle practicality to do what it thinks it must to win, while still touting (albeit ever so quietly) its platform…all in an attempt to have its political cake, and eat it too.

    But you chose to villify, demonize, and alienate…and you (The RPSDC) were cautioned; but YOU knew better…I take it as a badge of honor I have no “credibilty” with RPSDC..thank you..you made my year! I however, among others, gained influential and results-driven credibility with thousands of those YOU purposefully and deceitfully disaffected over the last several years. How do I know that? Because DeMaio lost…you, and the leadership, lost! It is the RPSDC that has lost credibility, Michael. (Couldn’t win in the biggest GOP wave in 80 years…how is that even possible? I’m sure the NRCC is analyzing that as we speak.)

    I take no pleasure in pointing that out…but now you know…you can choose to alienate, disaffect, and ride on false pride and hubris, or you can muster the courage to step up…and abandon the pastels of delusional moderation, and once again embrace the bold colors that actually win!

    Your choice….though I fear for the future of the GOP which one that will be…

    Merry Christmas, Rostra-ites 🙂

  20. “That’s not a liability; that’s a disenfranchised asset. I’m looking for the whys and how-to’s right now.”

    Brian, I have the utmost respect for you and your efforts. That really goes without saying. In many ways I am side by side with you in the fight to expand participation. But we don’t need the Franks of the world in order to win. He represents a small, bitter, hateful, dark corner of the political world who is now apparently delusional regarding the actual impact on elections. His hate and his hypocrisy shouldn’t be courted or reached out to. It should be scuttled so that we can expand. Let’s continue to concentrate on getting the normal people involved and engaged. We can’t court them with a bunch of big government Franks in the room voting for and endorsing Scott Peters from his position of fear and hate.

    For every Frank there are 1,000 rational, principled persons who just needs to be shown how to show up. And those people don’t want to show up and participate after meeting a room full of Franks.

  21. Brian,

    In his inability to not personalize this discussion, Michael Schwartz makes my point so well…he has taken the tack that any opposition to his political positions will be labeled as “hate..”

    It is the classic last gasp of a losing argument…Yell “hate” or “racist” or “bigot”…in an attempt to silence the opposition. Not only is it disingenuous and inaccuarte; its dangerous…this is coming from a “leader” of the RPSDC…this type of projection of bitterness, self-loathing, combined with arrogance and hubris is NOT the thrust the County of San Diego Republicans need..this new narrative appears indicative of precisiely why the County Registrar of Voters has documented over 80,000 “Franks” (voters) have left the GOP…

    But I return to my original proposition (which Mr. Schwartz did not address); Is the RPSDC prepared to re-affirm the GOP tenets of Life and Marriage? Or, as according to the viceral comments of Michael Schwartz, is that now considered “hate?” And if so, is that the official position of the RPSDC? Is this what the Chairman, and other EC members believe as well?

    That’s an important question to address in your discussion. Like I said earlier, the GOP needs to clarify its positions on these tenets..If an official of the RPSDC, as announced by Mr. Schwartz, believes those who believe in these tenets are “hateful”, well then that’s going to be quite a hurdle to jump for any reconciliation.

    (For TA- Are Mr. Schwartz’s ad hominom attacks, whether directed toward me personally, or other conservatives, the kind of toxic rhetoric tolerated on SD Rostra? I have seen you comment and scold others for much less…This is a supposed leader of a major political party..I am all about heated discussions, but his continued unsubstantiated and purposely maligning and villifying rhetoric toward a political faction that oppposed his position is not only unseemly, but lowers the content and character of this site..I believe you guys are simply better than that.)

  22. Brian, thank for posting this, and for encouraging all sides of the issues the oppty. to share.

    When I became involved in the Party in 2007 as Voter Reg. Chair/Member of Exe. Com. and member of CC, I worked my bootie off to promote the Party. Why? Because the Party clearly defended marriage and life – two issues that I strongly believe in (as stated in the Party Platform), And I was proud to represent the Party.

    Now, fast forward to the 2014 election, my how the Party has changed.

    As lifelong Republicans, and out of complete frustration and shame in the Party, my husband and I (along with thousands in SD, and hundreds of thousands across the country) left the R Party and re-registered as NPP. Why? The SDGOP violated its Platform by promoting the “New Generation Republican”. (who has since been rejected)

    As developer of the “Republicans and Independents for Scott Peters” website, we true conservatives formed a coalition and encouraged like-minded voters to cast their ballot for Peters – not because he shared in our ideals, but because he would do less harm to our society vs. DeMaio. We also wanted to send a message to the SDGOP: “Keep violating the Party Platform by promoting liberal candidates, and we will keep working hard to ensure those candidates loose.”

    The website was also a catalyst to inform voters of the antics of the R Party. Many San Diegans have no idea what is transpiring behind-the-scenes in the local Party – now they do.

    And now there is a ground swelling of true conservatives who are interested in changing the local Party leadership.

    My opinion: leadership (Chair/Co-Chair) in the Party needs term-limits in order to maintain accountability, and to avoid conflicts of interest. (it doesnt make sense that the Chairman has his business office in the SDGOP office). And the focus of the Party should be governed by its Platform.

    We all know that often “urgency” creates change. It did in the recent 2014 local election, as true conservative rose up and clearly rejected the “New Generation Republican”.

    My belief is the conservative coalition that has been formed would be interested in a meeting to see how we may all work together vs against/challenging the Party.

    Respectfully.

  23. Mary,

    From your historical and unique insight with the RPSDC, when precisely did the Party leadership become hostile to Christians and Conservatives? When did the transformation from a Party of Life and Marriage to a more intolerant and hostile secular and progressive agenda take place? Only two years ago, the Chairman himself was quoted as stating the GOP “will always be the party of Marriage”…what happened in the interim..? Did you see this right away, or was it a more incipient in its encroachment?

    Brian mentioned that many of the CC members are tied part and parcel to the political class and are directly or indirectly tied to the political process either through consulting or other agendas; Was that your experience as well? Do you know why Tom and MaryRose Consiglio were forced out of the party after having been awarded the coveted Precinct Award only a year before?

    Well, there are two of us willing to discuss the future with the Party…But if the EC member, Mr. Schwartz, has his way, he would NOT allow that…speaking of intolerance, was the EC leadership always so hostile to former GOP members? Has the vilification MO always been the tack by the Leadership, or is it’s demonization of Conservatives and Christian values formerly embraced by the Party a new phenomenon?

    Have a Blessed Christmas.. 🙂

  24. We are remote, with the small corps of admins being gutted for the holidays, although not gutless. For the time being, we would simply remind all Rostrafarians that it’s about policies, not personalities; it’s about differences of opinion on issues and approches, not name calling. It is much simpler to resort to personal attacks on someone you may consider wrong or even wrong-headed, but it’s so much better here to point out why you believe that to be the case than simply state it as such.

    Carry on. Merry Christmas, all.

    If anyone believes we are narrow minded or even hateful for wishing others a Merry Christmas, please point out why you think so, don’t just call us that.

  25. Thank you, TA…much appreciated. Merry Christmas to you as well!

    And on that note, even the English and the German troops in WWI stopped during Christmas to exchange gifts, goodwill, and blessings…

    So…Shalom, Mir na Zemlji, Fred på jord, Frieden auf Erde..Peace On Earth

    (..and then they went back to annihilating each other..)

  26. Post
    Author

    FYI, Neither Michael, Eric Andersen, nor I serve on XCOM anymore.

    @Mary, I”m always happy to visit with you; I never need a reason for that. Please keep reading the series and commenting

    @FF Merry Christmas as well. I hope you read the rest of the series and encourage you to comment of Part 4

    @Michael Any input on Part 4 you have is appreciated

  27. Brian, I haven’t thanked you for all the time and thinking that went into this. Thank you.

    I sat at a dinner table last year with Congressman Greg Walden, Chair of the National Congressional Republican Committee. He gave a wonderful speech on on Republican ideals. Only problem was he had just voted for the Farm Bill ten days prior. I brought this to his attention and asked him what the GOP “brand” was because what he articulated and how he voted were not coherent.

    I am not interested in getting Republicans elected. What I am interested in is helping men and women get elected who understand the great ideas that made our nation exceptional. I am only interested in electing individuals who will reform government. I have no interest in perpetuating/conserving the status quo. We had both houses under Christian “conservative” President Bush #43 and grew government and initiated bailouts . . .

    I do not understand how a Christian could vote for Scott Peters. Is a Christian allowed to do evil that good may result? It is my understanding that for Christ followers the ends don’t justify the means. Motives do not sanctify behavior. When Abraham and Sara violated this teaching they got an Ishmael instead of an Isaac and the unintended consequences continue.

    Congressman Hunter, despite being in a safe district voted for the 1.1T CR Bill and is recieving scores from conservative think tanks in the 60s and 70s – yet is a lock on the CRA endorsement term after term. I have yet to hear a Christian “conservative” besides myself and former Assemblyman Steve Baldwin challenge his record.

    Wondering if Mary and Brian would be willing to get together to see where our common ground is and see what might come from such. Coalitions can tip close races.

    What is the purpose of electing “R”s if they don’t believe in the ideas necessary for reform?

    We need a brand. We need conservative coalition leaders who will challenge Congressman Hunter and hold him accountable. Doesn’t say much for the conservatism of east county that he can have such a voting record while conservative leaders support him and vote for Peters.

  28. Post
    Author
  29. Brian: Many thanks for your hard work on the many important issues facing Republicans. Thanks also for your courage in speaking out.

    If we don’t change, we die, and I think we need to make changes.

    I am acutely aware that the neighborhood precinct operations has deteriorated. As one of Don Burgett’s Precinct Operations Area Captains, I watched my large group of precinct captains melt away and no longer work for the Republican Party. The ones who were straight with me, told me that they there were no candidates recently that they were excited about. I agree with Mary that they don’t feel engaged with the Republican Party like they were before.

    The volunteers I talked with felt that the endorsement of Carl De Maio was a bad left turn for the RPSD. They felt the RPSD’s excitement over Carl signaled an abandonment of core Republican values. Carl was the straw that broke their backs.

    I personally like Carl but disagree strongly with his social ideas. I didn’t agree with many of the disaffected Republicans actively working for Scott Peters and against Carl but I clearly understood their deep frustration. I think the idea of “The New Generation Republican” is totally inaccurate of San Diego Republicans opinions and an important reason why 80,000 Republicans in San Diego have left the Republican Party. These are still conservative people but feel that we no longer represent them.

    The question we all need to think about is how to bring these people back to the SDRP. A great beginning would be a re-commitment to core Republican values and development and recruitment of candidates that reflect these values.

  30. Eric,

    “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” Genesis 50:20

    It is easy to conflate a vote for Peters solely as support FOR him…when the exact opposite is true..it was a vote AGAINST DeMaio-and (even more so) a demonstration AGAINST the RPSDC endorsement and support therein. Those who malign and/or criticize those who took the valiant stand to vote against the party did so in direct support of their principles…and yes, AGAINST a hostile and recalcitrant Party apparatus. Critics of this bold stand can’t have it both ways…you can’t say “The conservative vote doesn’t/didn’t make the difference in the 52nd outcome” and also say” but their vote [in support] for Peters was damaging..”

    For if they conceded that the conservative vote did in fact tip the scale, causing DeMaio to lose (which was the only true intention) then they concede the conservatives DO matter…and they will no longer be patronized and marginalized by an openly hostile RPSDC toward them…for if they do, they walk right back into the bandsaw they stepped into last time…

    When the conservatives were disenfranchised, then ridiculed, and then openly mocked and demonized for not wholeheartedly and in neo-progressive “New Generation” stormtrooper lockstep decide to abandon their morality in order to “go along to get along” they used the same system and same “pragmatism” often touted by the Establishment consulting and pundit class that is in support of the leftward shift in the Party to “open the tent” blah blah…

    You aptly pointed out the congressman’s hypocritical rhetoric with his voting actions…How do you think that will change? That which gets rewarded gets repeated…we simply were no longer going to reward a deceitful, intimidating, and cowardly system that we actually can (and did) influence (unlike the deceitful, intimidating, and cowardly system of the Democrats, which we can not influence)

    Peters is vulnerable…he is not a player for the Dems, and can be, with a bold and courageous candidate with a morally aligned and convicted Party apparatus behind him/her, can both defeat Peters and set a more principled tone for a very damaged RPSDC.

    Merry Christmas to you!

  31. FF,

    I think Gen 50:20 would be appropriate in a discussion in which an individual was intentionally disregarding God’s command to love his neighbor and instead initiating harm. See Judas. His behavior was evil but God used it for good.

    I don’t think Judas, unlike some of my brothers and sisters would quote this verse and justify his actions on the basis of God’s sovereignty.

    From my understanding, Garlow and others felt their vote for Peters was justified, not on a theological basis, for ends can never justify means, but on a pragmatic one, a humanistic one.

    My opinion and we can agree to disagree here. I am not accepting how my brothers are framing the issue.

  32. FF,

    “You aptly pointed out the congressman’s hypocritical rhetoric with his voting actions…How do you think that will change?”

    Good question. Obviously he is only the symptom of a larger problem. He was freely elected at the consent east county voters because he most closely reflects their values.

    In the short run, someone needs to primary him who can articulate the great ideas of our FFs and can expose his poor voting record.

    In the long run I don’t see how reform can happen without the source of our poor education being addressed first. I don’t have any magic ideas here and am open to any you may have.

  33. Eric,

    I can’t speak to why others may have been inspired to thwart DeMaio for the 52nd (although I’m confident many were intent to stop him on much the same grounds as I was). I have shared this before, but I believe I represent a great many of those that chose to take a moral stand against this leftist, secular, and insidious encroachment of a fundamentally anti-Family agenda into the GOP mentality.

    1. Inherently, many within the GOP believe abortion is intrinsically evil. We will not either solve this or convince those that do not otherwise believe that now. However, that is a moral “bayonet” many were willing to affix when the RPSDC decided to endorse a local candidate who was comfortable with the liberal euphemism of “reproductive rights,” and a “New” influence willing to promulgate it to get him on the national stage. Had that happened, the RPSDC not only was quenching its own local party politics machinations, but was announcing they were setting a tone that the GOP was comfortable with this blatant and immoral shift leftward.

    2. On the SSM front, the same applies as it related to the perceived onslaught of liberal, humanistic, and increasingly brazen attacks on the nuclear family. One only needs to watch a block of primetime TV to see how vigorously slick, avant-guarde hollywood types are injecting every show with anti-Family themes. Even the Cartoon Network has introduced them at the 7 y/o level (with push back for many stunned parents). We see the removal of “husband and wife” from state administrative procedures, the advancement of CA AB 1266 (Unisex bathrooms) or the cooky and creepy Houston Mayor decreeing transgenderism and declaring gender-neutral status, including public bathrooms in the city itself, along with k-12 children bathrooms.

    3. The RPSDC did an adept job of keeping their nominee away from any penetrating public inquiries about his positions on any of these disturbing issues. When Mr. DeMaio went from his understandable “I don’t ask about your sexuality, why ask about mine” to” First Gay Republican” with glitzy advertisement etc, that turned off even some of his most ardent supporters (I know this for a fact as they came to the Jorgensen campaign..stunned, and with an epiphany of just how great this agenda into the GOP real was..). The same reason I didn’t vote for Falconer is the same reason I didn’t vote for DeMaio; their stances on both anti-Family tenets are the same. The difference between them and Scott Peters is we KNOW Peters and the Dems are anti-Family. I, and now confirmed thousands of others in SDC also decided we needed to stop the notion or the ideological inkling that the GOP would abandon these tenets for crass political aggrandizement.

    4. Despite much of the “bigotry” rhetoric hurled by some on this site, stances by many morally convicted within the GOP on “gay” relationships, the lives gays lead, or whom they choose to love is no different than most…frankly, many simply don’t care or are not adverse to their desire to share their life style proclivities with one another. (This is where many Libertarians and conservatives can agree) I would never advocate gays/transgenders cannot have a public parade, assemble, politically organize, and vigorously express their 1st amendment rights (In fact, I would fiercely defens d it). Where I, and millions of others across the nation have opposition is to the re-defining and maligning of the definition of marriage, and the natural erosion and the ramifications of the dissolution of the nuclear family and its preeminence for social, cultural, and moral health and stability. Even the most staunch libertarians would agree the redefining narrative is ominously Orwellian.

    5. I cannot control what reckless decisions the CA Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court have made/may make (we just need to see Roe v. Wade to see the consequences of “smart” people making horrible decisions for millions of unborn children) I can (as did 1000s of others) control what the local party might do, or not do, and we applied the force necessary to ensure the RPSDC was given a clear moment of pause the next time it chooses to abandon its own tenets, supporters, and those that helped get the GOP to prominence again on the national political spectrum.

    6. I would encourage you and others that while they may not agree with the means of how the RPSDC was stopped cold in advancing an antithetical, anti-Family agenda, that the people who organized, coordinated, and executed this tactic are GOP patriots; not the heretics or the “turn coats” some, even some leaders within the party, desperately want to craft them. I encourage you to watch the movie “Last Samurai” . The character Katsumoto, a devout and loyal warrior for the Emperor, embodies the exact conviction displayed by those opposed to the RPSDC’s ideological shift; he was forced to fight against the nobles who misled and deceived the emperor, and became a formidable insurgent force to bring the nobles and emperor back to the truly noble path.

    I remember very distinctly how many on this site tried to coax Jorgensen supporters back into the fold after the primary, even after all the deceit, avarice, and low-crass tactics used by the Demaio campaign and its enablers. Many hurled the invective of “intolerant”, “bigots” etc, which actually infuriated many to take a neutral stance in not voting for DeMaio, or for many, to vote not only against DeMaio, but in protest to the RPSDC, and voting for Peters. Many saw the tactics used by the RPSDC and the DeMaio campaign against those who opposed him very similar to the Obamaian/Alinsky tactics used by many liberals against the Tea Party in its early stages. I’m curious if those same staunch fire-breathers will take their own advice and work for common ground to recalibrate a very wounded RPSDC and seriously rethink their aforementioned rhetorical invective against conservatives. That will be the next battleground. Those that stay with the “bigot” meme are the ones debilitating the party…not the patriots that were willing to speak truth to power and announce the “Emperor” has no clothes.

  34. F.F.,

    Neither Scott Peters nor any Democrats I know are “anti-Family.” In fact, I will match my family and my love of each member with you and yours any day. I am sure Scott Peters would do the same.

  35. The Party, HQ..The Party…I can’t think of a single policy that has killed more children than the Pro-Abortion position…A vociferously defended platform for the Democratic party.

    I’m not disputing anyone loving anyone. I’m not disputing how they live or love. I, nor you, can quantify one’s love, admiration, or affinity for anyone or anything. I am disputing the structure and Orwellian implementation of SSM, as I would marital polygamy, incestual, or sanctioned “child” marriages or any other permutation outside of OM/OW advocates and defines that otherwise binds functional society.

    When we change the definition of things, we change things themselves. It’s absolutely ok, and your God-given right for you to want to change things. And its absolutely ok for me, and my God-given right, to defend them.

  36. FF,

    We do not agree on much but we are in total agreement when it comes to your last paragraph. I would however add that the only thing that has ever been certain in life is that things change.

  37. My dad used to tell this old joke about the 4 branches of the military. It was about the word “secure”. If you tell the Marines to secure a building, they send men in to storm the building. If you tell the Army to secure a building, they put a couple MPs at each door and set up a satellite link. If you tell the Navy to secure a building, they tie it to a pier. If you tell the Air Force to secure a building, they turn off the lights and lock the doors behind them.
    There are variations of the joke and what each branch would do, but you get the gist. He told that joke to everyone and thought it was hilarious. Nobody ever heard the joke and accused one of the branches of changing the definition of a word or worried about the fall of civilization because people are using a word 4 different ways.

    But…nobody he told that joke to had strong and unfair dislikes of other people, ideas, etc. They weren’t using big government because they hate or refuse to accept the members of a particular group. They just understood that different people use words in different ways and according to their individual differences.

  38. HQ,

    Uh oh…we may be agreeing on something… 🙂

    However, I caution touting the virtues of change for change sake; ISIS is change…Putin in Ukraine is change…Mussolini was change…Mao was change…Eugenics was change….while I agree epistemologically in the inevitability for “change”…not all change is good, my friend.

  39. FF,

    I think I would classify “Putin in Ukraine” as retro, not change.

    More seriously, I hope (and assume) that you are not trying to equate your examples of genocidal psychopaths (also not really change) with those who simply believe that two consenting adults should be allowed to make the same loving life-time commitment that my wife and I were able to legally make.

  40. HQ, Yes. He is. He is quite literally comparing genocidal psychopaths with those who simply believe that two consenting adults should be allowed to make the same loving life-time commitment that you and your wife made and me and my wife made.
    That’s bigotry. It is an example of an unreasonable dislike or disdain.
    Based on his own words FF is simply a bigot. Same sex couples and same sex marriages have been around for centuries and will happen in our country and around the world no matter what their legal status is. Treated a same sex marriage the same as all other marriages won’t usher in the end of civilization. It won’t change the status of my marriage or anyone else’s marriage.
    I will grant you that there are a small section of extremist LGBT activists that want all kinds of weird things. The end of marriage. The oppression of straight people and couples. Etc, etc, blah blah blah. And those opposed to legal recognition to same sex marriage will dig up some ridiculous blog that one of these extremists write to “prove” that they’re coming to get us. Oh No!!!
    But these LGBT extremists shouldn’t be seen as anything other than what they are which are wacko extremists who have no real voice, no real power, no legitimate point, and a group that represents no significant amount of people. They shouldn’t be accounted for or considered. We’ll always have fringe extremists and always have had them.
    My suggestion is that FF (et al.) are the equivalent, but with the opposite views and should be treated similarly. That doesn’t mean I am talking about all Christians or all conservatives or even all people who oppose same sex relationships. It means I am talking about those vocal bigots here whose motivations are not out of legit concerns or an attempt to protect rights, but out of a lack of tolerance of differences and whose chosen solutions are like all solutions suggested by these kinds of extremists: big government control.

  41. HQ,

    No..I was equating the notion that “progressive” (the “hope and change” variety) is not necessarily so. That which many tout as “progressive” is in fact regressive and ultimately repressive. (There were many in US Eugenics academic circles in the early 20th Century that openly agreed that the National Socialists in Germany were “on to something.)

    But since you raised it, does your “marriage equality” meme for the US include polygamy, consensual incestual relationships, or sanctioned child marriages as well? Do you envision an America where you extend the loving life-time commitment construct for those relationships and not the unjust limitation to SSM alone? And if not, why not, given the “equality” of marriage has been the ideological thrust of the agenda for many advocating SSM?

  42. “I think I would classify “Putin in Ukraine” as retro, not change.”

    Perhaps at first blush…

    I would submit it is a classic Hegelian synthesis between a neo-fascist thesis of reclaiming former Tsarist and Soviet hegemonic glory, and the anti-thesis of a new world template where NATO, UN, and the EU have demonstrated a virtual lack of political will to thwart an emerging imperial (nuclear) Russia; one that is clearly powered by old perceived fears, xenophobia, modern-internet, satellite TV-fueled jingoistic propaganda, and a hybrid paramilitary/intelligence apparatus that can do just about whatever it chooses throughout the former Soviet periphery. It will come at a tremendous cost, but there is no nation/security construct willing to stop them if they choose to proceed, let’s say into Moldova, or Georgia proper. The Soviets, under the Cold War bipolar construct, couldn’t have gotten away with it.

    I think Mr. Obama referred to this as “flexibility.” 🙂

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallmagazine/2014/08/01/a-land-on-the-edge-n1872433

  43. Brian,

    More to consider for your analysis;

    “That’s bigotry. It is an example of an unreasonable dislike or disdain…Based on his own words FF is simply a bigot.”

    I am afraid Mr. Schwartz and the “bigot invective” wing of the RPSDC has begun to believe its own rhetoric…he believes anyone who disagrees with his position is a “bigot.” It is the rhetorical equivalent to the extremist who shot those two cops in New York…just because they were cops…and because of the “Al Sharpton” mentality and mantra of telling the lie loud enough, and long enough, some simpletons will believe it. Mr. Schwartz has sadly become the “Al Sharpton” of the leadership that lost; losing sucks..I get it. However, if that kind of drive by rhetoric is going to be at the forefront of any effort to move the party forward, it will die before it begins…perhaps that is Mr. Schwartz’s intent…not reconciliation, but division..I guess he (conveniently) forgets that the very party he claims to be so passionate for is the same party that believes/d exactly (that means precisely the same) as I do regarding marriage between one man and one woman…so either Mr. Schwartz was once a “bigot” himself, supported bigots and all those who proclaimed “unwavering support” for Prop 8 are bigots (which I’m assuming is you as well), OR (more disturbing) Mr. Schwartz never believed in supporting the GOP on this tenet and has been posing as a Republican for some yet unbeknownst reason.

    So which one might it be; Were Schwartz and all those hurling the “bigot” narrative posing then, or are they posing now? In either case they have become caricatures of themselves and lack any value to your efforts if they insist on this intellectually stunted and tired, baseless meme.

    You will need to find reasonable people with serious approaches for reconciliation. It is preposterous the notion that the 100Ks of GOP supporters in SDC during the Prop 8 debate are suddenly ALL “bigots” because in the skewed and (ostensibly) angry Schwartz-enabler reality they possessed an “unreasonable dislike or disdain… ” It is NOT a path for healing. It in and of itself is true bigotry.

  44. Yes, I am the same as people who assassinate cops, same sex marriage is just like Mao and child molestation, and you are truly the victim in all of this, Frank.

    hahaha…I take everything I said back. You are truly a very reasonable person, Frank. Who wouldn’t want to join a club who would have you as a member?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *