A Case For Changing The Republican Party Of San Diego County — Part Five: Reconciling Irreconcilable Differences

Brian Brady Brian Brady 21 Comments

Share

This is a long series so let me summarize it before we start to talk about how to reconcile irreconcilable differences.

In the first installment, I posited that the Republican Party of San Diego County’s (RPSDC) celebrated “San Diego Model” was, in fact, not being followed. The comments that followed suggested early endorsements alienated people in the primaries, causing them to “drop out” of the general elections.

In part two, I offered that the most important person in our party was the neighborhood volunteer precinct captain (PC). I discussed how most successful county party committees relied on the PC for both Get-Out-the-Vote (GOTV) efforts and party governance. One commenter reinforced the importance of a neighborhood communications strategy and another suggested that the failure of our party comes from the committee leadership ignoring the will of registered Republican voters.

The third installment is when the discussion got interesting. I tried to explain that Prop 14 and the loss of Mary Rose Consiglio were the reasons we lost our vibrant neighborhood precinct captain network, aka “The San Diego Model.” I suggested that donors have an overweighted influence on our committee (and its endorsement decisions) than do the volunteers. I also recognized that the cornerstone of our party, Pro- Life and Traditional Marriage voters, left the coalition that is RPSDC. Commenters affirmed two things:  (1) the endorsement process alienated many voters and (2) some Republicans are frustrated that the party platform isn’t being followed.

Part Four was my attempt to define those most likely to join the coalition that is the local party organization. I asked people to define their “vote moving issue,” and the conversation reverted to the platform. In a sense, I wondered if we might find consensus in the comments and the opposite happened. This brings me back to two thoughts:  (1) the RPSDC process is broken, and (2) none of us are ever going to get everything we want in the coalition that is RPSDC.

This (part 5) may be the most important installment (to me) because it will define if this committee is even worthy of reform. I still think it is. I was elected to a four-year term on this committee and I intend to honor my commitment, but in thirty years of political activism, I can say, without a doubt, that the RPSDC is the most irrelevant county central committee for which I’ve volunteered (and I’ve been elected to three county committees, in three different states). This is why I resigned from the Executive Committee. Some of this may be a function of the times, some of it may be a function of campaigning in a hostile climate (California is not a hotbed of conservatism), but the RPSDC county central committee is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.

Let’s start here; the cultural conservative movement to campaign against Carl DeMaio was a horrible idea. I understood that some voters wouldn’t, on principle, vote for a candidate with his positions on Life and Marriage, and I accepted that. But when the leaders of the pro-Kirk Jorgensen volunteers actively campaigned against DeMaio, they put themselves at risk of not being taken seriously. Pastor Jim Garlow’s “strategic defense” theory did more damage than good. They campaigned FOR a candidate with intrinsically evil positions with the hope that a more conservative candidate could defeat the Democratic candidate in two years.  Here’s the rub — that “more conservative candidate” doesn’t stand a chance if he or she doesn’t have local party support.

Cultural conservatives can try to advance that candidate in the local Democratic Party but they’ll be in hostile territory there. If cultural conservatives want to champion a candidate, they will have a better chance to do it within RPSDC, but the scorched earth approach they took makes them suspicious to the RPSDC faithful. Cultural conservatives have some work to do to regain credibility. I want to foster an environment to help them do that, but confrontation won’t work at this point.

The “New Generation” meme was a bad and is now a discredited idea. I don’t know which consulting firm focus-group tested that, but to intentionally attack the “white, middle-aged male” is like McDonald’s advertising that overweight people shouldn’t come to their restaurant. I know, I know…the idea was to be more inviting and inclusive but even SUGGESTING that the church-going, gun-owning, Desert Storm veterans are myopic, explicitly or implicitly makes no sense. In the beginning, I thought the idea was to highlight more libertarian ideas, but the message turned into some kind of class warfare battle, pitting high-propensity Republican vs. right-leaning Decline-to-State voters.

There is room in this party organization for cultural conservatives, libertarians, and social liberals, but it’s not going to happen if we focus on our differences rather than to rally around our similarities. We need to “reconcile irreconcilable differences.” Let me offer a few things to consider:

1. Stop calling people “RINO’s”. If you checked the R box on your voter registration, you’re a Republican. You may not be a Christian, you may not be a conservative, you might even support gun control, but you’re a Republican if you checked that box. I have always thought our party was the party of ideas so I don’t mind that you think differently than I do. I believe that if you hang around me enough, you’ll start thinking like me, so I’d rather engage you at Republican  party meetings than fight you as a Democrat.

Understand that political parties are just meetings of like-minded people. If you have disagreements with people, be thankful that you’re in a party organization which encourages debate and dialogue. Consider this advice (comparing our coalition to a marriage):

These are irreconcilable differences. They will not change. Our personalities are a study in contrasts, thank God. Imagine how boring our marriage would be if we were exactly the same. Our differences strengthen us, both individually and as a married couple, challenging us to accept each other “as is.”

2. We are going to argue,  I EXPECT us to argue. We are freedom loving individuals with strong personalities. We were attracted to the Republican Party for SOME reason(s) and I’ll bet most of us share a reason for that registration we chose. Sometimes, that’s going to require a sort of compromise on candidates. Some of those candidates will go against the written platform and that will drive you nuts. If you focus on complete compliance, you will be left with too few candidates for the close to 1,000 elected offices in San Diego County. Consider this from the same article:

But sometimes our irreconcilable differences lead to arguments, and sometimes those arguments can be heated – voices raised, feelings hurt. (It seems stubbornness is a trait we actually have in common!) It can be extremely difficult to be the first to step back and really listen to the other’s complaint, be sensitive to it, respect it and honor it. For me, it is very hard to cast aside my natural “my way or the highway” tendencies and put on the cloak of unselfishness. But no one ever said marriage wouldn’t involve hardship or sacrifice. We promised for better or for worse.

3. RPSDC has to do a better job at fostering an environment to hash out those arguments. Our Chairman is famous for saying “don’t reward bad behavior.” While I sometimes disagree with his definition of bad behavior, I can agree that suggesting someone is bigoted for holding a platform belief or openly campaigning for Democrats are bad behavior. I sense that the empowerment that the party endorsement brings, or the frustration that the endorsement looks “rigged,” causes people to act in a divisive matter. If that schism is irreconcilable for future elections, leave. I think you’ll find, like Nathan Fletcher did, that you’ll be in a no-man’s land where few if any people trust you in the world of political activism. Stated differently, if you chose to leave the RPSDC last year, it’s going to be hard to criticize the actions of the people who are doing the work today. Conversely, if you intend to insult people because they became Republican when Ronald Reagan was President, you’re defeating the purpose of political party associations.

4. Our State Party Platform is a consensus document, not the US Constitution. It’s a statement of shared beliefs but not a litmus test for candidates. I disagree with that document in a few places and I know my Republican neighbors disagree with other parts of it. I have often said that the garden-variety Republican, in Alpine, is going to view that document differently than my Republican neighbors in Solana Beach. This is a big county, perhaps too big for one party committee, but this is how its organized. Quoting the party platform, scripture and verse, to play “gotcha” ain’t gonna win elections. Promoting “your” candidates, within a committee of people who respect you, will.

I recognize that the Republican Party of San Diego County has to reform its ways. I know our endorsement process alienates people. I know we have lost vibrant, excited volunteers. I know we have to expand our influence among younger voters. I know we have to do this now, as in the next month or so, or suffer the indignity of ceding more parts of the County to the Democrats.

I want to make the changes we need to make and I hope you’ll see fit to be part of the conversation these next few weeks. I appreciate the comments, feedback, phone calls, and e-mails from many of you. I’ll wish you a Merry Christmas because I celebrate it and hope that, whatever your holiday celebration is, it’s blessed and joyful.

Share

Comments 21

  1. Brian Brady, with all due respect, I must take issue with several of your statements:

    You say that the cultural conservative movement to campaign against Carl DeMaio was a horrible idea.

    I respect your opinion, but it’s just that: your opinion. I respond that the movement to campaign against a fake Republican was well-received in some circles, including among Illinois conservatives who faced a similar situation with fake Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner.

    You say that when the leaders of the pro-Jorgensen volunteers actively campaigned against DeMaio, they put themselves at risk of not being taken seriously.

    I say that we pro-Jorgensen volunteers who actively campaigned against DeMaio don’t care about others’ opinions as to our seriousness.

    You state that Pastor Garlow’s “strategic defense” theory did more damage than good, and that we letter-signers campaigned FOR a candidate with intrinsically evil positions with the hope that a more conservative candidate could defeat the Democratic candidate in two years.

    I aver that the Defensive Tactical Voting strategy did much more good than damage. It helped awaken people, both locally and nationally, to the treachery of the local and national GOP’s endorsement of candidates who openly dissent from the party’s social issues planks. A prominent example is John Boehner’s ill-fated trip to San Diego earlier this year to endorse DeMaio.

    And I further assert that the GOP-endorsed candidate, Carl DeMaio, also held “intrinsically evil” positions on life and marriage.

    You claim that cultural conservatives can try to advance that candidate in the local Democratic Party but they’ll be in hostile territory there.

    Brian, you miss the point: We who signed the letter weren’t trying to advance the Dem candidate in the local Democratic party. We were trying to defeat Carl DeMaio.

    You say that If cultural conservatives want to champion a candidate, they will have a better chance to do it within RPSDC but the scorched earth approach they took makes them suspicious to the RPSDC faithful.

    I say: We who campaigned for Kirk Jorgensen and against Carl DeMaio ARE the “RPSDC faithful.” We’re the ones who deplore and decry the party’s lurch to the left—and toward vice. We’re the ones who took admittedly took unorthodox measures to provide a wake-up call to local GOP leadership to stop going down this dead-end road and to return to tried-and-true traditional values

    You say: Cultural conservatives have some work to do to regain credibility. I want to foster an environment to help them do that but confrontation won’t work at this point.

    I respond: We cultural conservatives don’t “have some work to do to regain credibility.” Our credibility rests solidly on our championing of timeless values, such as respect for life from conception to natural death, and the natural family. The work that must be done lies with changing the views of those who oppose these values.

  2. Brian, thanks for the thoughtful presentations on the RPSDC. I’ve been a prior elected member of the CC for two terms and been very active at Many levels of political engagement.

    I have a lot of sympathy for your views and agree with much of it. There are a few points I need to take issue with, however. The first is that both Scott Peters and Carl DeMaio have intrinsically evil positions when it comes to matters of life and family. The question for many of us was which one would cause the most damage to the conservative values that the Republican Party is built on. Clearly Carl is the bigger threat because he would (and still can be) destructive to those fundamental values from within, while Peters is a weak force outside.

    The other point has to do with your very appropriate use of the differences that always exist in marriages. The problem is that a marriage that does not have shared, core values will never be as strong as it should be. There is a huge difference between having common fundamental values with differences in how to support, strengthen, and promote those values; and having intrinsically different core values and then attempting to path up or overlook those differences.

    Take it one step further. If the wife thinks the child she is carrying is nothing more Than a piece of flesh that can be disposed of at will but the husband believes it is a precious baby – that is not some general parenting technique with differences of opinion that can just be accommodated. The same is true for the case of a husband thinking he can sleep around with any woman he cares to as long as he “loves”his wife, but the wife believes her husband should be faithful to her alone. Those are not shared values, and throwing them away so that other minor decisions of living our lives can be pursued without any consequences to the marriage is clearly irrational.

    The core values need to be promoted otherwise they are of no purpose. As long as the RP tries to be a big tent and accommodate basic values that are destructive to our lives, our businesses and our families the result will continue to be the same.

    Vr/Frank Kacer

  3. Post
    Author

    “The question for many of us was which one would cause the most damage to the conservative values that the Republican Party is built on”

    Thank you both (Allyson and Frank) for your comments. Might we stipulate that the vote for Peters wasn’t the moral choice but rather a political calculation?

    When presented with two candidates who hold intrinsically evil positions, we are called to choose who might limit the evil to society (and yes, party affiliation, among other things, comes into play here). Stated differently, you had two pro-choice candidates: one of whom votes with Nancy Pelosi and the other votes with John Boehner and you chose Pelosi.

    I get that this was a political retaliation for the early endorsement of DeMaio and I”m trying to address that The question should be, if RPSDC didn’t endorse, and DeMaio made it to the run off, would the same tactic have been deployed? I personally think the answer is “Yes”.– that’s a bigger problem moving forward.

  4. Brian,

    Welcome back..I hope you had a relaxing Chrsitmas.

    “Stated differently, you had two pro-choice candidates: one of whom votes with Nancy Pelosi and the other votes with John Boehner and you chose Pelosi.”

    Excellent observation.

    But that is the issue, isn’t it…Perhaps the vote was as much a rebuke of of the RINO-ish positions and lack of principles displayed by Boehner, et al. As I’ve said before, DeMaio, and the RPSDC, already proved they were willing to disgard time-honored GOP tenets, for apparent political expediency and an attempt to appear more “big-tent” ish.

    So it’s Boehner today, but maybe Pelosi tomorrow…”reach across the aisle”, “compromise”, ..”go along to get along”, “New Generation”….God forbid, we had another crazed gunman go off on some horrendous school/mall spree..and once again, “gun safety” etc are on the political docket. DeMaio already displayed a propensity to cant into the prevailing political-correct and socially sensitive winds.(The Prop 8 gimmick while in City Council aptly demostrates that probability) …given that, that “Pelosi” preposition doesn’t seem that far fetched.

  5. Okayfine. The Peters vote was a political move. Heard, loud and clear. This still leaves the problem of trust moving forward. Can RPSDC, if it reforms the endorsement process, trust you (collective you) to not sabotage the endorsed candidate if that candidate is not yours?

    This is important. We agree that the process needs improvement. If we fix it, can we all get behind that candidate? If not, I don’t see a reason to try to fix it (or even serve on the CentCom).

  6. Brian,

    Many lament that the “platform” is not the party, etc…I think principles and tenets matter. I think, for many, the RPSDC found that point as they say in economic theory beyond the “point of indifference.” for core conservatives Again, their is a place for everyone in the GOP on a myriad of issues where their personal “price point” can and may be met, be it redefining the the word “regulated” in the 2A; a local, state, or federal tax percentage point above a perceived “acceptable” level; a 400 ship navy vs. a 300 ship navy; tax-subsidized stadiums, etc. I would surmise as long as the party adheres in the spirit of its stated and certified tenets and ideology, then those friction points and political crisis occilations will remain dampened.

    So…yes!

  7. Post
    Author

    Thank you FF and others for the input; I appreciate that you did it publicly. The amount of emails and phone calls I’ve received, since I started this series, leads me to believe that we can almost wrap it up.

    I”ll have one, maybe two installments left to conclude it.

  8. Reasonable, measured, civil., principled..it has been your MO for nearly all our discourse..for which I am truly grateful, my Friend.

  9. Brian,

    Epilogue:

    I think the RPSDC must address these following key issues with clarity and unambiguous language in order to set the conditions for any “discussions” toward any reconciliation.

    1. Does the RPSDC still/now support the Family empowering tenets of Life (working toward policies and actions minimizing to the greatest extent possible the unilateral death of any unborn child or policies, laws, actions that promote a culture of death vice one of life and options beyond abortion) and the principle that marriage in the American tradition is defined as One Man and One Woman? If so, are they willing to reaffirm these stances and declare them in their bylaws and minutes?

    2. Do certain current or former members of the RPSDC XCom or CC believe that any one who believes (or apparently believed) that marriage should be defined as OM/OW is NOW considered a bigot and should not be associated with the RPSDC, the GOP or the Republican cause i.e. persona non grata?

    3. Do current or former members of the XCom/CC consider themselves bigots as defined by those who opposed DeMaio (for his political positions on Life and Marriage specifically, and not as some desperately try to craft about his personal sexual behavioral preferences) or who supported Prop 8? If not, what is their position wrt those that continue to promote and inflame the bigot meme either in the name of, or tacitly for, the RPSDC for those that did support Prop 8 (understanding that would include the current Chairman of the RPSDC, a number of current and former CC members, GOP members of congress and the Senate, and countless GOP enablers, volunteers and consultants across the nation)?

    4. If the bigot meme is to stand, what precisely absolved all those GOP volunteers (including the Chairman) of their former “bigotry sins” as virulently laid out by some? What is the ‘litmus test” for the cleansing process to satiate that contingent of the RPSDC that the former Prop 8 supporters, numbering in the millions across California, are now “purified?” ?

    5. I cannot speak for the countless others that opposed the RPSDC endorsement of the last 52CD nominee; I will say I am prepared to engage with scores, perhaps hundreds that the RPSDC is prepared to reconcile IF these issues are adroitly, transparently, and clearly addressed.

    This may be a defining moment for the party as we roll into the 2016 cycle.

  10. Good list, Frank.
    Could we add the equally as interesting and credible….where does the Republican Party stand on chem trails?
    And the Bilderbergs?
    And ancient alien astronaut theory?
    And the lone gunman?
    Or Kenyan born presidents?
    Who really shot JFK? And RFK? And J.R.?

    Nailing all this down will really help attract people into getting involved. Thank you, Frank, for being a part of the solution.

  11. Does anyone believe Tony Krvaric, the Chairman of the RPSDC, is now a bigot because he publicly supported Prop 8?

    Are (former) EC/CC officials in the RPSDC stating that all those who support OM/OW as defined in the Prop 8 debate are also bigots?

    Are all those CC members who opposed DeMaio now bigots as well?

    Apparently so, according to RPSDC official Michael Schwartz.

    I didn’t think Mr. Krvaric, many in the RPSDC CC, and I had much in common; but according to Mr. Schwartz’ logic, we are all “bigots”…and if you supported Prop 8 or didn’t vote for Carl DeMaio, so are you.

    Please send your responses to SturmOberfuhrer-Politik Michael Schwartz…he apparently is the PC Commissar for the newly formed “Thought Enforcement Division” for the RPSDC…he may want to know precisely where you stand on your support of Prop 8 or if you opposed DeMaio or not. Be prepared to be assailed as a “bigot” and “homophobe” for not agreeing with Mr. Schwartz’ world view.

    “Soyuz ne resheemik, respubleek svobodeekh…,” …come on, you know the words. If not, Mr. Schwartz can assist…he apparently certainly understands their intent…

    Happy New Year.. 🙂

  12. Post
    Author
  13. Merry belated Christmas and Happy New Year to all!

    Brian, again, thank you for generating this thoughtful discussion.

    You asked: Can RPSDC, if it reforms the endorsement process, trust you (collective you) to not sabotage the endorsed candidate if that candidate is not yours?

    I answer: That depends on whether the RPSDC reforms the endorsement process to back candidates who hold positions on life and marriage that are congruent with the party platform.

    For many of us, life and marriage are the defining issues; we feel that the economic and liberty issues rest upon and derive their strength from respect for life, traditional marriage, and natural families.

    Brian, when you begin this installment by stating your opinion that “the cultural conservative movement to campaign against Carl DeMaio was a horrible idea”—and when Mr. Schwartz calls us names—and when you ask whether we will “sabotage” a reformed endorsement process—it immediately sets a negative tone toward those of us who authored and signed the letter supporting Scott Peters.

    Rather than berating us, I suggest that the party needs to take a closer look at itself and ask probing questions, such as:

    * What caused formerly rock-solid Republicans to resort to such a measure?

    * Why is the party alienating its voter base?

    * What can the party do to bring alienated voters back into the fold?

    Thanks for listening!

  14. Allyson, if you go back and read my comments, the only names I called were Frank, Jim Garlow, Mary Moran, and Karen Grube.

  15. Michael…

    ..you forgot Tony Krvaric…AND all the supporters of Prop 8 and all the volunteers that believe as we do in the tenets of life and marriage…nice try Michael..but you no longer can have it both ways…

    If I, Karen, Mary, and Garlow are “bigots” then Krvaric must be one as well..and any other current or former card carrying GOP member…It appears you just seem very angry that we succeeded…and were effective..and for that, I am guilty..but it doesn’t make one a “bigot.”

    Here’s the deal..I would rather go through SERE school again than spend anytime talking to the likes of (a currently very angry) you (and you made the feeling quite mutual..)..however, I’m going to put my “sanctimonious” Christian foot forward…how about instead of you and I lobbying rhetorical tomahawks at each other. (and while it may feel good in the short term, I surmise it produces little real thrust) and if both of us (as we have both claimed) fight for the “party” then how about we set the tone and talk…just talk…not do our nails or star in a Buddy-Cop Dramady together…just talk…and while it will be a “dentist appointment “for you”and a “waterboard session” for me, we can take the high ground and set an example for the entire process..because Lord knows, if you and I can get through a cup of coffee without giving up, then perhaps…just perhaps, the party can too..

  16. .Pt 2-

    ..or we could speak to our respective issues at a venue outside the party confines…Pericanos…or Lee De Meo, Debbie & Bob Lensen, Wayne Iverson, or any of the many County Federateds, VIPs, or Woody’s Eagle Form might host an event where you present your concerns, I present mine, and they have an evening of discussion and “solution” developing conversation..like a “workshop”..we either leave, and let the magic unfold, or remain to answer questions, clarify…and I promise we don’t even have to talk to one another…

  17. No, Frank, that is not one of the names I called.

    I would invite you to go back and read my comments again, Frank. I believe you misunderstood what I wrote the first go around.

    You, Jim, Mary, Karen have written and/or spoken on exactly what your motivations were for endorsing and voting for Scott Peters. Through your words and actions it is clear you fit the definition of a bigot. The group you are bigoted against would be the LGBT community. If you are unaware of the definition of “bigot”, please Google it.

    It hurts when someone attacks you for just being true to yourself and what you believe is the right way to live your life, huh Frank? There might be a lesson to learn here.

    You big government types like to call this a “teachable moment”, Frank.

  18. “Through your words and actions it is clear you fit the definition of a bigot. The group you are bigoted against would be the LGBT community.”

    Michael, it is you that has misinterpreted; not only my words, but those of the GOP party platform, the words, actions, and deeds of millions in support of Prop 8, and those who continue to believe IN marriage between OM/OW…NOT against the people that choose to participate in a life style for which I may not agree with, I have said (ad nauseam) I would defend and will defend their right to live it…but I will not submit to the Orwellian recrafting of definitions and constructs as you apparently are at ease with…there are all sorts of moral convictions and precedents set by our society..we don’t allow Marines, who lead patrols in the morning, have a beer when they return..because they are 19, and not 21…we advocate for those to recycle..and in some case penalize those who do not…we don’t let 17 y/os vote..we think running a red light is unsafe…and we fine people for littering…we are forced to adhere to affirmative action..yet our nation elected an African American president (twice) have an A/A Attorney General BL- our society discerns actions, attitudes and behaviors all the time…and for millions, being forced to accept a construct antithetical to their moral conviction is in and of itself, immoral..the Big Government solution you advocate is not that one can choose to not put two men on the top of a birthday cake..but that one now MUST, if one chooses to stay in business..or that one must accept a health policy, and pay for it, that promoted Abortion issues millions do not accept..that is YOUR Big Government solution,,is it not??

    In the redefining of this basic, universally accepted tenet, the grounds for your “bigot” meme arose..I never changed, and I suspect the thousands in SDC that have left, and those who still (now forced in the morality”closet” by those that are comfortable with Orwellian redefinition) didn’t either…

    By changing the definition of marriage (btw, you never did answer whether you believe “equality” includes polygamy and the like…) you not only confuse and conflate issues, you fundamentally change them…

    Here’s an example..

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    By all means, please share with us which of those words you are prepared to “redefine..” there’s all sorts of “wiggle room” there..”well-regulated”..”necessary”..”infringed..” “shall”..”security”..”free”…

    Cue the Jeopardy music…I would imagine none of the above..and as I mentioned numerous times to where you may also have either ignored or misinterpreted, I would have been as determined and “bigoted” in my stance had their been a subtle, slow encroachment to change that “unwavering” tenet with the party platform…

    You’ve never articulated how is it those who showed uncompromising principle for one tenet are in your view bigoted, but those who would defend the 2A are some how reasonable, measured, “principled..”

    I’ve run out of cheeks…God Bless You, Michael..and best of luck!

    PS- Where in the world did you ever get the idea that I was Big Government…that’s hysterical…don’t conflate my service to our nation as an indictment of those that honorably serve..and do work that frankly many are neither able or willing to do in the service and defense of Our Nation…

  19. You want me to go to an Eagle Forum meeting with you and tell them you should stop being a bigot, Frank? And then they are free to ask you and I questions about it?

    I think you and I have differing amounts of free time on our hands.

    I’ve been crystal clear as to what my views are and it is equally clear that you don’t understand what I am saying. It’s either because you can’t understand or won’t understand. Either way, I have no interest in spending more time with you on it.

  20. Post
    Author

    Allyson,

    I appreciate the advice about the words I’ve chosen–none were meant to offend so I apologize if they came off that way. A few thoughts:

    1- I”m a not a “platform cop”. I don’t buy into the CRP platform, in toto, and I know few people who do. That said, I love the document–it’s still an excellent values proposition.

    2- I can’t subscribe to platform purity, in candidates, because it would lead to a watered down platform (elected officials will insist on less, rather than more, firm stances taken)

    3- I AM in favor of you (and I) lobbying central committee members for issues which interest us and for candidates who hold those positions. All I can do (at this point) is to offer to reform the endorsement rules.

    I am arguing AGAINST a top-down process. If I understand your comments, your arguing for a DIFFERENT top-down process. I”m not interested in a party organization which dictates to candidates or volunteers their principles.

    I AM interested in a process where you can argue that Life and Marriage are bedrock principles, I can argue that the drug war is just a right-wing jobs program, and Michael Schwartz and Founding Father can argue (side-by-side) FOR the Second Amendment.

    I CAN work to reform the process so that your voice is heard. I can’t (and won’t) reform the process so that (different) top-down rules are issued (as much as we may agree on those issues).

    If that interests you, I’m interested in your help.

  21. Brian..I tried..but you can’t fix this kind of “angry”…

    But it is remarkable how Mr. Schwartz is displaying “principle”…gee, I wonder where we’ve seen that recently…:) Here we were to believe “principled” is the new “bigotry..”

    Observe- “You want me to go to an Eagle Forum meeting with you and tell them you should stop being a bigot, Frank? And then they are free to ask you and I questions about it?”

    This is what you will have to overcome..as long as you have narrow-minded entrenched Party insiders advocating those that oppose the Orwellian view of the world are “bigoted”, with no explanation for why he conflates and continues this meme, then you have a long road to travel…the “you’re bigoted because you’re bigoted” argument has grown quite flat..

    Rage is powerful to overcome…

    However, my offer and “workshop” proposition is still valid (..Michael has marginalized himself..so whether he is there or not is quite irrelevant at this point..)

    Ask Lynette’s VIPs, or Debbie’s “patriots”, Woody’s “Eagles”, or Pernicano’s and I’m sure they would consider it.

    Oh..and from what I’m to understand from some of the previous RPSDC officials’ antics, some will be there via surreptitious cell phone monitoring with or without our permission I’m sure… 🙂

Leave a Reply

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