The US Senate race from California is odd right now. Democrat Kamala Harris is leading the polls with Democrat Loretta Sanchez slightly ahead of Republican Tom Del Beccaro and then, Republican Duf Sundheim. Republican Rocky Chavez bowed out of the race on Monday to announce he’s running for his incumbent Assembly seat.
Republicans have a difficult time in statewide races because of the disparate voter registration in California. With two former CRP chairmen running, it is possible that neither of them will make the run-off in November. The CRP won’t endorse in the statewide race and most county committees won’t either (nobody thinks a Republican can win a state wide race in California anymore.)
I think that’s a defeatist attitude. In 2014, former CRP Chairman Ron Nehring ran a great campaign for Lieutenant Governor against Gavin Newsom, winning three million votes and 43% of the vote. Ron is Pro-Life, signed the “no new taxes” pledge, and is against amnesty for foreign nationals in America.
How then, are we to determine who can best articulate Republican principles in the run-off election?
Let’s look at the issues:
The Republican Party is against new taxes so much that over 90% of the Republicans have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. (The CRP calls on all candidates to sign the pledge.) Del Beccaro signed the pledge, Sundheim won’t.
Del Beccaro proposed a detailed flat tax plan which earned him the endorsements of Arthur Laffer and Steve Forbes. Sundheim argues that Ronald Reagan rejected the flat tax plan (Untrue, Reagan compromised with Congress and, in his own words said “I’d rather get 80 percent of what I want than go over the cliff with my flag flying”). Sundheim argued that “a progressive tax plan protects the middle class.”
A Republican Senator Should Hold Republican Values
The California Republican Party is the Pro-Life party; that is not questionable. While many “pro-choice” Republicans have good voting records on Life (look up Brian Bilbray’s), it is generally understood that Republicans are Pro-Life. That plank has served us well, too. Public sentiment has shifted. While more Americans support “choice” than “Life,” a super majority of Americans believe abortion should be restricted to the first trimester. Del Beccaro is Pro-Life. Sundheim is Pro-Choice.
A Republican Senator Should Hold Republican Values
The California Republican Party is against amnesty for foreign nationals, living here illegally. Sundheim supports a path to citizenship for foreign nationals; Tom Del Beccaro does not. This is not insensitive nor is it racist. In fact, Del Beccaro sees immigration as a national security issue and proposes a one-step-at-a-time reform agenda, starting with a proposal to enforce visa overstays.
A Republican Senator Should Hold Republican Values
I am, by no means, a “platform cop.” While the three cited issues are important to me, I can live with the quirky disagreement or two (especially in California)–I know that it’s tough to win and govern as a complete conservative in a blue state. Look at the preponderance of the positions on the issues. On three big Republican values, Del Beccaro is in line with California Republicans and Duf Sandheim is not. Does that make him a horrible candidate to face Kamala Harris? Absolutely not, but it doesn’t make him the best Republican to articulate our values.
At a certain point, in a race thought unwinnable by all of the pundits, Republicans will have to rally behind one candidate in order to secure a top-two spot in the June election. I choose to back the Republican who holds Republican values.
DISCLOSURE: Brian Brady has financially supported the Nehring for Lt Governor campaign (2014) and Del Beccaro for Senate campaign (2016).
Comments 5
In my opinion, Duf Sundheim was a really good CRP chairman . On the other hand, Tom Del Beccaro was one of the worst in recent memory. Yes he had to deal with a presidential election year, but there is no excuse for losing some of the seats we did, and while not all was on him, he has to take the blame for a continuing decline in infrastructure and finances for the party. With that being said, I support Del Beccaro whole heartedly.
Sundheim is from the lets run as Democrat-Lite wing of the party, who can’t get it through their heads that that is not a winning strategy, just look at the great campaigns of Kashkari and Whitman. They still don’t get it that the base for a Republican candidate, conservative Republicans and Decline to Staters who have left the party because the elected Republicans weren’t governing like Republicans will not and have not come out for non-conservative candidates. Also, it doesn’t matter what their views are, Democrats and their allies in the media will continue to portray them as the worst right-wing caricature around.
One of the worst thing about this race is the fact that the party has seemingly given up the race as lost. Sure it’ll be hard and a big part will be whom the Republican presidential candidate is at the top of the ticket, but this is something the party has dreamed about for almost a quarter of a century. Senator Babs not running a nd they’re doing noting. Even with a flawed candidate in Carly and a horrible choice at the top of the ticket, Fiorina still held Boxer to 52%. Despite all the media hoopla about her, Harris is not the runaway success she’s portrayed as. Ron Gold, with no name recognition or financial support, not to mention Kashkari at the top of the ticket still forced her to run ads in Los Angeles in the final weeks of the campaign
The worst thing about this race for the party are those going around saying we should support and vote for Sanchez because she’s conservative, which she sure as heck isn’t. She’s just as liberal as Harris, but likes to claim she’s moderate. This race needs a good strong conservative, not someone the Los Angeles Times and Sacramento Bee thinks is a good choice.
This also shows why the top-two primary continues to be one of the dumbest things in California election history.
Author
“In my opinion, Duf Sundheim was a really good CRP chairman . On the other hand, Tom Del Beccaro was one of the worst in recent memory”.
Sundheim can take credit for recalling Gray Davis. (Hooray)
And giving us Gov Arnold Kennedy Schwarzenegger (Boooo)
When we could have elected Tom McClintock (Bummer)
You gotta wonder if Sundheim’s mismanagement of the recall didn’t contribute to the challenges Nehring, Del Beccaro, and Brulte faced
Perhaps Sundheim was a better CRP chairman. Perhaps not (Presidential election years are deadly for the CA GOP).
But the GOP chairman’s job that’s not what a SENATOR does. A U.S. Senator VOTES on bills, procedures and issues. How that person will vote if elected is all I care about.
I’m not yet saying Beccaro is the better choice, based on that voting criteria. But preliminary indicators indicate that such is the case vs. Sunheim.
BTW, while I am mildly pro choice, I can respect folks who vote pro-life. More important, this is an issue that is largely settled, so one’s position in this issue are largely irrelevant. Where it IS relevant (late term abortions, for instance), I usually come down the pro life side anyway.
On the other hand, the contested bills that come through the Senate each year can literally be passed with single Senator’s vote — and THAT’s what should be important to a voter. GOP voters should vet their choices on that factor.
The author has misrepresented Duf Sundheim’s positions on his three most important issues.
First, Duf is personally pro-life and has adopted a libertarian stance that it is a personal decision. Criminalizing women who terminate their pregnancy is not his objective. His personal, close relationship with his mentally handicapped brother taught him that all human life has value. His brother David died recently.
Second, Duf believes that a path to legal status is not the same as a path to citenzinship – that spending upwards of $750 billion and ripping apart communities to deport 12 million people is impractical. He wants control over and a secure border first. Legal status means immigrants can work and pay taxes but not vote.
Last, a flat tax is a very attractive idea. Duf has spent a lot of time discussing this with George Shultz and John Cogan at the Hoover Institute. These men who knew Ronald Reagan and were part of his administration, talked Duf out of the flat tax. They explored it in depth under Reagan and determined it would hurt the middle class. Duf sides with the middle class.
Duf has not only been a very effective state chairman – electing Republicans, raising money, increasing the vote for Republicans in all minority categories and winning a national award for his outreach, he has been active in important reform initiatives that passed with majority voter support – Redistricting Reform, Pension Reform, Education Reform. Tom DelBeccaro is all rhetoric and no record of accomplishment. The opportunity to elect a Republican that can win and represent all Californians is in front of us.
Author
I appreciate your contribution Ms. Caro but I think it’s important to be clear on these issues:
1- While I too hold some personal views which I would not use the force of law to implement, abortion isn’t one of them. In fact, the libertarian position is split on legal protection for unborn children, not pro-choice. Moreover, conflating legal protection for unborn children with criminalizing mothers is a logical fallacy of composition (but I think you know that). Nonethless, Duf’s position is out of step with the majority of the California Republican Party.
2- I didn’t misrepresent Duf position on amnesty but maybe the Sac Bee did (I linked the article). The Sac Bee said quite clearly that Duf supports both legal status and citizenship for foreign nationals, illegally domiciled in the US. Did the Sac Bee lie?
Amnesty is out of step with the majority of the California Republican Party.
3- Schultz and Cogan are respectable men but they don’t represent Reagan’s own words. Duf said, in a debate, that “Ronald Reagan rejected a flat tax and that a progressive income tax is the only way to protect the middle class”. I linked the KOGO debate for verification (I was there).
Reagan did not, in any circumstance, reject a flat tax. He negotiated that which he could get from Tip O’Neill.
We can argue about Duf’s efficacy as CRP Chairman but, as Mr Rider noted, both men are running for US Senator,
Do Duf’s extraordinary positions, more aligned with blue dog Democrats, make him a “bad” candidate to face Kamala Harris? Absolutely not (I repeat this for emphasis) but California Republicans are presented with another good choice, for US Senate, with positions more aligned with the majority of the California Republican Party.
Why wouldn’t Republicans want a standard-bearer who r pr seats Republican values (unless our values are bad)? Do you think RepubIican values are bad Ms Caro?