10News last night reported businessman Steve Francis is considering a run for Congress in CA 52, Scott Peters’ seat.
Watch for this to play out in the next few days, with Carl DeMaio running for mayor.
Oh, and Kevin Faulconer running for mayor as well.
Comments 51
Somebody choke-hold Jerry Sanders to take out Peters. That would almost certainly be a victory. I know he probably doesn’t want to commute to DC, but he could take a page from the Nathan Fletcher Assemblyman playbook and just not show up for work. I’d rather have a Congressman who didn’t show up than Peters.
i am an indigo blue big D Democrat…and totally with you 2 cents on the subject of Scottie…we are far better off with a Republican who will admit it and in doing so take responsibility for Republican doctrines and their consequences, rather than a salamander like Scott, who believes only in his entitlement to office and invitations to nice golf events….this is of course why I also am totally in sync with sdrostra on the subject of Nathan–just Scottie’s metrosexual little brother and another one who will be accountable for nothing that goes bad on his watch
2 Cents,
Besides having a (D) after his name, what specifically has Peters done to annoy you so much?
Funny, 2 cents. I have even considered running on just such a platform.
My platform: I promise I won’t go, won’t take pay, won’t junket, or hire any staff. Probably I’d be one of the nation’s best Congresscritters.
What about City Attorney Jan Goldsmith? Seems like a natural fit for the district, considering his time as an elected official in the area and having prior beaten Peters.
Steve Francis? Doesn’t he live in Nevada now? We need someone with a record of proven leadership and a record of winning. Why not Goldsmith? He’s embarrassed Peters in the past.
U-T: The race for mayor: No time for political opportunists on either side.
http://web.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/02/mayor-fletcher-demaio-opportunism/
Mr. Melvin,
Though I absolutely agree with the premise of your statement, I become a tad leery when we start looking for the incumbents and same politicos that swirl around the water cooler that is San Diego politics. “Proven leadership” and “record of winning” are deceptive…most councilmen and professional political types do not lead…they legislate and administer…which I believe is at the core of why our political woes and stagnate fiscal and social concerns are not being properly or adroitly addressed.
I have been following Kirk Jorgensen. He clearly has displayed true and critical leadership as a combat-veteran and operating in the sensitive and often dangerous arena of human intelligence. As I mentioned in another comment, his selection and deployment as a full-cycle, fully accredited CIA-trained Case Officer convinces me (having been in human intelligence myself) that Jorgensen was afforded a broad and deep level of responsibility in the defense and vigilance of keeping the rest of us safe, as we slept. I cannot emphasize this point enough, which unfortunately either gets lost, or is not understood by those without military intelligence experience. His vetting process, and his necessity to understand, influence, and affect high-level sensitive, and critical intelligence priorities cannot be overstated. Trust me when I tell you, this is not embellishment…it is a very delicate area in that he, or those that precisely understand what he was actually doing, cannot fully disclose the level of responsibility and capacity at which he operated. I can say, unequivocally, that we would be better served as a nation if more people with his experience, background, and training stepped up the the political campaigning plate.
He is running on the notion that we, as voters, consider him as a leader, and not as a politician.
Scott Lewis: “The U-T ran front-page endorsements of DeMaio for mayor in 2012. Now they say no, in same piece criticizing another for changing his views.”
Founding Father… trust ME when I say that Jorgenson will not make the runoff in June 2014. Don’t take that as a shot against him, it’s just that he has no shot.
Hypocrisy Q – Easy answer, H amendment 413, where he voted (along with many Republicans) for the NSA to continue its unconstitutional practice of violating citizens’ privacy rights. You, like me, who write under a nom de plume, should appreciate the value of privacy! 😉
I’m sure your next comment would be to consider attacking all Republicans who also voted no on this bill, and the answer is, we should definitely take them to task. But Peters’ wayward ways don’t stop there. He was on the wrong side of Tax and Spend votes HR 2009, H amdt 450, H Amdt 448 — and those were only last month. He’s perhaps slightly more moderate than some, but still a full fledged ObamaCare Loving, Tax You More, Pass the Debt to the Kids… Democrat. San Diego can produce a much better representative.
Richard Rider – The job is yours, and I commend you for offering to take a pay cut for your invaluable services.
2 Cents…I am, perhaps naively, quite a bit more optimistic than you are…however, if in the last several days on this site, and the last few years observing the SD County Republican Party actions and proclamations, then it is not a stretch to see perhaps one of the strongest single Republican candidates make a bid for a CD seat since Duncan Hunter Sr, yet right off the bat, the powers that be (which you may, or may not be a part of) will write off Mr. Jorgensen….and why? Because he is “too” Republican?
The steady family man, the combat vet, the native San Diegan (Rancho Bernardo), Eagle Scout, Marine Officer, CIA Case Officer, smart, articulate, constitutional based, a practical and broad understanding of terrorism and our national defense, practical and prudent immigration platform,will fight to overturn ObamaCare, with scores of choice endorsements and some big name donors to boot…nope…The San Diego County Republican Party isn’t going to endorse him….???…did I get that right?
Because he nails every single core aspect of the National Republican Party Platform…is a combat veteran who has a unique and very rare insight to NATIONAL security and defense having earned it as a highly placed intelligence operative, needing the skills and attributes to make life and death situations while balancing initiative and judgment, all in a hostile environment, and therefore, in the eyes and vein of the “New Generation” Republican Party, he isn’t…what…”new” or “Generational” enough?…Is it because he is too Republican??
I am at a complete loss as to the lack of fortitude and conviction on the part of the SD County Republican Party establishment and the actions, and proclamations of some of the party’s “elders”, who attend Traditional Marriage banquets and rallies, do all the obligatory nodding when discussing Life issues, slither around Tea Party and Patriot Coalition meetings and discussions as if they actually care or support any of the issues those thousands of 52CD residents consider important…including Conceal/Carry, Border Security, Obama Care, Tax Reform, reigning in out-of-control unions, on, and on…yet they get back to Rancho Bernardo, swirl their bourbon highballs and chardonnays around in the “Premier Circle” of the SDCRC $1000.00 membership club, and completely disregard the National Platform as illustrated in the bylaws of the (their own) Republican party….I actually had a prominent member of this site, and an active member with the SD Central Committee … tell me that it would not be practical to hold candidates to the Party Platform..”No one would win”…intonating one cannot be such an ideologue.
Don’t be a Republican if you want to be in this party…..
Did I miss a step? For the love of Pete, if the SD County Republican Central Committee is not going to adhere to its own bylaws, then why in the hell do they have them at all? Either the bylaws are broken, or the organization that is bypassing them for political expediency and new rise in political “Fletcherism” in the name of the “New Generation Republicans” is broken….
I, and thousands of (soon to be former) republicans in the 52CD are rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is the latter…the Party is broken…NOT the Platform. Yet Falkounor has endorsed DeMaio…both whom openly refuted what a majority of Californians voted on, Prop Eight, and passed…clearly 90% of them Republicans, and yet for their own self-aggrandizement and political expediency, went diametrically opposed to the will of the entire state, just to be members of the “New Generation Republicans”…
What else will either of them, and their apparent Party enablers, decide to oppose with a vast majority of their own party advocating otherwise?
2 Cents,
Thanks for the specific examples. They add credibility to your opposition.
FF – the problem with your “analysis” is that ignores the brutal dynamics of the 52nd. To win in that district the GOP candidate MUST appeal to the GOP voters that are affectionally known, with a hat tip to Tom Shepherd, as Coastal republicans. These voters elected Susan Golding to office and have sent Ron Robert to the BOS multiple times. They supported Harry Mathis but also Sheri Lightner (TWICE!). They have shifted back and forth across Republicans to Democrats creating a seriously unstable and swing district that is so influenced by swing voters and turn out.
And you can take this to the bank. Should the GOP nominate a “scary republican” (and yes, that is exactly what he is) it will be DRAMATICALLY easier for democrats to turn out students. It will hurt the GOP in Carmel Valley (especially among upscale suburban women) and it will be potentially a problem in La Jolla. THOSE are the battle grounds for the 52nd – not East County. Not even RB – but in communities where social issues are just a crushing burden for GOP candidates.
The GOP in California MUST be able to compete in these more secular, more upscale coastal communities. From Carmel Valley to Irvine to Santa Barbara and Santa Clara County it is in these communities were a socially conservative vision just ends up crushing our chances.
I don’t know about you but I like to win. Just funny that way.
“the GOP candidate MUST appeal to the GOP voters that are affectionally known, with a hat tip to Tom Shepherd, as Coastal republicans.”
Like it or not, Republicans in Poway are different than Republicans in Ocean Beach….and there ARE a lot more Republicans in Ocean Beach than you might think. Leave your “Don’t Tread on Me” rash guard at home if you surf Avalanche and you’ll actually have a conversation with someone.
FF
It comes down to 2 words to explain your points
Nehring
Krvaric
Erik,
what do you “win” if the same, tired, regurgitated policies and people keep mucking up the works? Are you “winning” when you leave a country to your children worse than your parents gave it? For all your pragmatism, there sure isn’t any forttitude. What makes you think you can out “left” the left.” And in your pragmatism, why are you still part of a party that espouses such anathmas for precepts for you?
I would invite you to come hear or speak with your “scary republican”…then perhaps you can be a voice of truth and light that he is no such thing…he is an proud American that, through his party, and their support, wants to leave a country better than the one his parents left him…Does anyone believe that is the case with the poster child, DeMaio, for the New Progressive wing of the RP?
“I actually had a prominent member of this site, and an active member with the SD Central Committee … tell me that it would not be practical to hold candidates to the Party Platform..”No one would win”…intonating one cannot be such an ideologue”
I did NOT say that. I said
“Gosh, if we held candidates to that platform, nobody would get out of a primary. That’s no reason to scrap the platform though.”
I wasn’t “intoning” anything but rather stating a fact; I don’t know one Congressman who adheres to the RNC platform verbatim. If total compliance was a prerequisite to a Republican nomination (which we don’t have in a post-prop 14 world), not one sitting Republican Congressman would get that nomination. Neither would Messrs Jorgensen or DeMaio.
I’ll repeat myself for your sake; that’s no reason to scrap the platform. I think it’s a pretty good document and, while I don’t agree with it 100% (because I am a constitutionalist), it’s a good compendium of common beliefs.
This is the second or third time I’ve watched you toggle between threads and misrepresent, through omission or misunderstanding, what people have said.
Another piece of advice: The RPSDC Central Committee hasn’t even considered endorsing anyone for CD52. You might do well to stop projecting frustration where it doesn’t exist. While I have stated my personal preferences, I’ve arranged for at least one speaking gig for Kirk and plan to get him as much exposure to GOP volunteers as possible. I also tried to counsel and recruit a candidate (other than my preferred one) back in December (who subsequently declined to run).
Why? Because that’s what I signed up for when I volunteered to run for this slot.
I have a personal preference today but I won’t let that stand in the way of letting good, credible candidates get exposure and, as I have said at least a half-dozen times on this site, Kirk Jorgensen is a good and credible candidate for Congress. Moreover, I can distinguish between my personal endorsement and what i think is best for the RPSDC to do about an endorsement.
I admire people with passion but sometimes passion has a way of distorting facts. if you don;t understand what I say, read it a few times and ask a follow-up question. Jumping to hasty conclusions makes you appear impetuous and intellectually sloppy.
I don’t suffer fools well. This site has had a few come and go but the majority of commenters here, from all ends of the political spectrum, pursue discussion with rigorous honesty and respect.
PS: Anybody who has spent more than 15 minutes in my company knows that I drink beer. You might share one with me before you make crazy statements.
Mr. Brady,
In all fairness, “crazy” is a bit hyperbolized. And a bit unfair. Clearly, I have “pushed back” and raised issues that expose and make good people, like yourself, and others, consider that the status quo, and the direction, for what ever “pragmatic” reason is also not working the RPSD.
And believe me when I tell you (because I have spoken to hundreds of them) there is a huge number (probably in the thousands) of people in SD County that feel completely ignored by the RPSD. That, Sir, is a fact. And when you, and others, decide you will push them aside for the notion of “bringing in others” all in the name of political pragmatism, in the “New Generation” Party then you make a decison…one that I, and thousands of other disagree with…and you didn’t like that, so you personalized it.
What a shame!
When someone, who other people have commented (others that displayed rigorous and honest debate as you said) my comments provide elucidation, added clarity and raised issues many of the “members” have not or would not consider have said , thank you, and “good point”, yet you sir resorted to name calling, demonization, and absurdum to negate the fact that you said if the platform was adhered to fully, no one would get out of a primary (meaning=they would lose) . We can debate the merits of the statement, but you clearly made it. I don’t think that makes one “crazy” or a “fool” as you put it to illuminate your position as YOU stated it.
Leader ship= Equals getting someone to do something for you they normally wouldn’t do them selves
Good leadership= Getting someone to do something for you they normally wouldn’t do themselves, and THANKING YOU for it later…
Today, Sir, you did neither.
FF asks….”what do you “win” if the same, tired, regurgitated policies and people keep mucking up the works”
Simple
Less Democrats.
Erik,
The presumption is the “Republicans” would act like “Republicans”…for some, on key issues, these “Republicans” have the exact same positions as Democrat idealogues like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden..
With Republicans like that, who needs Democrats?
FF, you’ve tried to change the conversation. We started with a conversation about Kirk Jorgensen and you’ve morphed it into a crusade against the RPSDC because I stated that I still think DeMaio is my personal choice. You’ve applied my personal preference to apply to the whole committee—that Sir, is a “hasty generalization” .
There is a distinct difference between my statement and the inference you drew. Permit me to clarify– the platform, as a template, would yield no candidates whatsoever..
eg— Rand Paul and Kelly Ayotte hold views which differ from each other and vary from the platform. Neither would get through the vetting if we applied the “strict platform argument” to them. Neither would Messrs Jorgensen or DeMaio. I consider all four of them to be good Republican candidates or officials and I disagree with every single one of them on one point or another.
THAT is what I said. If it wasn’t clear to you before, it is clear now. You can continue to misrepresent my statements now that it is crystal clear or you can engage in meaningful discourse. The ball is in your court
FF,
To put it succinctly: Many on this site do not believe that an extreme social conservative can win in CD 52 and they would prefer a candidate who is a fiscal conservative (even if he is socially liberal) to a candidate that is both a fiscal and social liberal.
The fact is that parties don’t enforce their platform. Is it their place? I guess that’s another discussion, but they don’t. No party does. So expecting them to do something they simply don’t do is an exercise in futility.
Dems don’t get thrown out for balancing a budget or lowering taxes. Repubs don’t get thrown out for banning guns or raising taxes. Libertarians don’t get thrown out for whatever their view is on abortion. This is a reality. You can either deal with this reality and act accordingly or you can stomp your feet and cry in Brian Brady’s favorite beverage. But reality is reality.
Carl DeMaio was against Prop 8, yes. Voters approved Prop 8, yes. But when Carl is elected then Carl (along with his views) has the support of the voters. It’s not magic; the guy got elected and continues to have the support of the people he wants to represent. The actual founding fathers were crystal clear when they ensured that the people have the right to pick who represents them in our constitutional Republic form of government, without question. The people’s right to take away the rights of the minority with a vote is definitely in question. It’s a mob-rule, left-wing, Democracy. Some are happy to be a part of that mob as long as it is the mob they agree with.
Would you be equally as passionate about the will of the people if the voters approved a gun ban? Late term abortions? Tax hike? Open borders? Universal healthcare? Ban on religion? Slavery? Or would you fight all of those by voting to elect the person who fits most of your views and fight those laws in court? (Rather, the views most important to you) So run an anti-same sex marriage candidate in that district. He/she would have a very different view from Carl or Kirk. Kirk told me that same sex marriage is protected by the First Amendment, which sounds like a solidly Republican view of rights, liberty, and freedom to me. Good luck to whomever you find to run, but the only way to get a candidate who agrees with you 100% of the time is to run yourself. (Unless you are Nathan Fletcher who disagrees with himself often)
HQ,
I’m not saying an “extreme” social conservative would win either…nor am I, as some might imply, advocating for a select one (nor am I aware that any “extreme” candidate has emerged)…what is remarkable to me is, and to thousands that have become disenchanted with the current leadership, is these are the same people who try to play both ends against the middle… attending Traditional Marriage banquets and meetings participating in Tea Party Rallies and Patriot Coalition activities and meetings projecting the idea and tacit (at least) notion that they, too, are in the Party of Family Values, and cherishing the Sanctity of Life. They are either inadvertently, or falsely, patronizing those who still think the Republican Party speaks for and to them. It is a discussion, a realization, perhaps for some, that while there is the desire and approach to include and lure some, they are systematically eroding a very powerful, energetic, and mobilized base that since 2010 have been riding successful and inspirational waves that might be tapped to great effect if the leadership was not so dismissive of their core positions.
What does it say about the Party and the Platform if key, select individuals, ostensibly, in powerful and influential positions, either negate the base, or negate the platform when it suits them in relationship to these issues? Of course, they are more sensitive, and often elicit a greater passion than say, Federalist versus States-Rights, or which tax code should be set, or other complex and legislative issues, these are issues of great import for people of conviction…one of the cornerstones of our party has been the implied understanding that we are more “convicted” than the other guys (Dems)..is conviction now considered “extreme?”
Let’s be practical…no, you don’t lead with them (social issues)..but you cannot simply ignore them and expect those that have conviction on these issues to just “keep coloring” at the back of the tent, and then expect them to rally behind a candidate that has the exact same position on key issues as Barbara Boxer, Anthony Weiner , or Barney Frank (speaking of extremists)
Either come clean with the base and tell them we no longer adhere to the platform (change it)…”it’s a nice idea and all, but we simply don’t think it speaks to our constituency”, blah blah, …OR, include the fired up base..And understand for thousands, these “extreme” issues as you put them (yes, the “extreme” positions as stated in the Republican Platform, strategy, vision) must be taken into consideration that manifests into real support and backing, in the formulation of who we, The Republican Party, want on the National stage…
Otherwise, it appears hypocritical and “Flethcery” to forgo key tenants for political expediency..
You, Hypocrisy Questioned, should be able to relate with that better than most…
Great name, BTW!
Michael,
Good post, but there is certainly nothing in the Democratic Platform against balancing a budget or lowering taxes.
FF,
I think it comes down to where you are running. A Republican in Kern County or a Democrat in San Francisco can strictly adhere to their Party’s Platform and get elected. That won’t work in CD 52, neither for a social conservative or property rights (environment be damned) advocate nor for a left wing extremist like Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Lee.
Hypocrisy,
That surprises me. 🙂
But Mr. Schwartz,
No I wouldn’t…but I wouldn’t have been drawn in the first place, because it is not our platform to approved a gun ban, late term abortions, tax hike, open borders, universal healthcare, ban on religion, slavery., etc..
I will concede, Mr. DeMaio, and his supporters are as convicted in their respective views as I may be, and thousands of others, with mine…the difference is, I thought I was in a Party that believed, for the MOST part, and in key areas with which I am convicted,
Point of fact- I do not speak for either Mr. DeMaio or Mr. Jorgensen simply because I speak about them…so, though I clearly would choose Kirk Jorgensen over Mr. DeMaio because he is a much more complete package as a Republican than Mr. DeMaio, so , as implied, Mr. Jorgensen and DeMaio will better articulate their positions…and then one can determine if it is either “too extreme” or “pragmatic enough” The separate issue is the as I see it, as a lifelong, big R, straight party line Republican, we either need to be upfront and open with the base that the “Platform” as they understand it, and as it is PROFESSED by the party and leaders through bylaws and websites, and declarations is still valifd for a Republican to both believe and run on…or it is not…then we become something else..The “New Generation” if you will.
In either case, be consistent and honest!
Mr. Brady,
I am not, nor was I trying to, misrepresent you. On the contrary, Sir. I am, as I set out to do, attempting to reach a modicum of clarity. That starts with, what do you believe in?” If I dropped in from Alpha Centari, and researched the Republican and Democratic parties, I would see two fairly similar institutions with relative minor approaches to governance within the frames of our Constitution (eg, compared to, let’s say Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sweden). However, there are two issues (yes, the nasty, ugly, third rail issues..We all know what they are) that clearly, and definitively, and distinctly separate the two platforms…
I will concede to the necessity for practical, pragmatic, inference-based approaches as you have illustrated in the vetting, selection, etc…of Republican candidates, (as I have every reason both Messrs DeMaio and Jorgensen have and will continue to provide) if you Sir, and yes, the RPSD leadership, will concede they either need to find a way to include the thousands of registered voters that are, in fact, convicted, to those principles (and perhaps willing to bend on others), as projected, promoted, and declared by the Republican party, its ideology, and strategic precepts, and guidelines…or not…
Some advice for you, Sir-Your brand, the RPSD, looses credibility with voters if you appear to pick and choose which “pragmatic” approaches will be used on whatever given day, with whatever “Cool Kid” candidate may appear to draw more votes…and in doing so, you open yourself up to vulnerabilities from both the “extremists” (as one commenter labeled them) at one end, and the “other guys” (Peters, et al) on the other; A double exposure to your center-of-gravity. If you, through your pragmatic and “measured” approach are willing to drag the voter –base and its ideology further from the platform, in an attempt to get more people who like the “Cool Kid”, then so be it. I would recommend it be done openly, transparently, and without all the pandering and head-nodding toward those of us that remain with our convictions…and once thought the Republican party was the place to exercise those convictions.
And I close from where I started…clarity over agreement…transparency, and conviction. I do not think that is too much to ask from one’s leadership.
(And..I know you probably won’t want to…but I am certainly open for a beer…if you can suffer this “fool” a little longer…) 🙂
FF
A) I don’t read walls of text. Learn how to use the Return key to make paragraphs.
B) If you think Carl DeMaio=Nancy Pelosi there really isn’t any point in having this dialogue. It suggests that YOU are only interested in a narrow number of social issues – ones that for many of us, I might say, are ones which we decidedly wish government would leave alone and where we feel our party has made, sadly, a pretty illogical stance.
“And..I know you probably won’t want to…but I am certainly open for a beer…if you can suffer this “fool” a little longer”
Don’t kid yourself. I’d suffer most anything for political conversation over beer. 🙂
Do you plan on attending Monday night?
Although Erik’s comment about “walls of text” may seem off subject, we agree. VERY difficult to read, not unlike writing in ALL CAPS.
In fact, we usually try to add paragraphs where commenters “intended” to place them, while also cleaning up spelling, punctuation, etc.
But, we can’t do it all the time, especially not when comments are being posted regularly.
Food for thought.
Oh, here’s what the above would look like without paragraphs…
Although Erik’s comment about “walls of text” may seem off subject, we agree. VERY difficult to read, not unlike writing in ALL CAPS.
In fact, we usually try to add paragraphs where commenters “intended” to place them, while also cleaning up spelling, punctuation, etc.
But, we can’t do it all the time, especially not when comments are being posted regularly.
Food for thought.
ok
Erik..
I can explain it to you,…alas, I cannot comprehend it for you.
I am not saying Carl DeMaio=Nancy Pelosi..I’m saying on key tenets of the Republican Party for over 50 years, Carl DeMaio’s postion on Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage=Nancy Pelosi’s position, and Harry Reids, and Scott Peters’…It is up to the registered voters of the 52CD, of which thousands believe as I do whether they like that or not.
Perhaps your thousands of libertarian leaning “New Generation Republicans” will be more than the existing Republicans that actually thought the Republican Party WAS the Party of Life and Marriage.
I get that Libertarians might not get that..”let all hang out” right…”whatever you wanna do, man…long as it doesn’t bother me.”
That’s cool. Party On! 🙂
Michael,
Surprised me too, but no matter how hard I looked I couldn’t find it.
Erik says:
FF asks….”what do you “win” if the same, tired, regurgitated policies and people keep mucking up the works”
Simple
Less Democrats
Wrong
New Generation Republicans voting like the Democrats they replaced
FF – Simply put I do not consider the principal role of government to regulate sexual morality and thus these issues, for me and MOST REPUBLICAN VOTERS, are of secondary concern. Running exclusive on them does NOT appeal to the majority of even Republican voters. See how Rick S. or Pat Buchanan faired even in conservative GOP primary states. Again, I like WINNING. I would much rather take a GOP candidate who is conflicted pro-choice than an active promoter of the abortion industry.
Mole – the idea that “new General Republicans” vote like Democrats is laughable. If you have followed nearly any issue that matters (labor relations, regulation, taxation) the gulf between these supposed camps remains stark.
Finally, I may just speak for myself but if Government wants to be in the marriage game (and we decidedly are, with over 5000 federal benefits alone being conferred to married couples over unmarried co-habitating adults) than we can not say no to gay couples. I would be much happier if government got out of that business. But since we are in, I am going with the equal protection and due process clause. Seems a completely and easy reading of the Constitution.
Erik,
You said”
“Simply put I do not consider the principal role of government to regulate sexual morality and thus these issues, for me and MOST REPUBLICAN VOTERS, are of secondary concern. Running exclusive on them does NOT appeal to the majority of even Republican voters”
Who said anything about “exclusively”…hell, most people would settle for “inclusively”..you, however, and others, are going to forgo 50 plus years of Republican Party precepts to “annihilate” them out right as a concern at all.
Tell me, if the government shouldn’t concern itself with “the principal role of government to regulate sexual morality”, then why are polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality illegal?
Erik said-“Finally, I may just speak for myself but if Government wants to be in the marriage game (and we decidedly are, with over 5000 federal benefits alone being conferred to married couples over unmarried co-habitating adults) than we can not say no to gay couples. I would be much happier if government got out of that business. But since we are in, I am going with the equal protection and due process clause. Seems a completely and easy reading of the Constitution.”
Shall polygimists seek equal protection as well? How about incestual relationships…why stop there..why can’t a 17 year old boy and a 53 year old man be afforded the same rights? I mean, a 17 year old can go to war with the consent of his parents..shall he be able to marry a 53 year old if the parents say yes?
For 5000 years, we knew what marriage was…welcome to the era of trying to define what it isn’t….
For what it’s worth, as much as I love and follow the dialogue here, there’s nothing worse than someone that just can’t keep themselves from completely hogging a discussion. There are many social conservatives in CD52. But, to be frank, I was wondering if someone who posts over 50 comments to Rostra in just a few days best represents the average voter or even the average activist? Just asking.
wow…so much for spirited dialogue and the “to-ing” and “frowing” of political banter ideas…is there a quota, Spin?…
If you haven’t been following the news, Spin, a lot has been happening, and the political landscape and ramifications for The RP and candidates has sparked considerable discussion and interest.
I think in all fairness, though not quantifying it, I have been responding to multiple comments either directed at me, or in reference.
Need a little friction to make traction…if that is “activism” then I am guilty as charged.
“Nothing worse”??…lol..I can think a a lot of things…like being in an airplane that is on fire, for one…, tagging toes, and writing condolence letters is worse…rather be doing this, thank you very much!
But, if Spin, if you don’t like it…well…I guess too bad!
Just answering.. 🙂
I was just bummed he had to bring bourbon into this. I mean Chardonnay, I get it. Totally obnoxious drink. But bourbon didn’t deserve that.
..ok..I agree…Bourbon did NOT deserve that!
See, progress!
Ya know, FF…if the Republican Party has as much power as you indicate and you’re as right on every topic as you indicate…why wouldn’t you attend meetings to be a part of the Party/effort?
I’ve read somewhere that there’s an election or something in a couple months for some reason. Not sure of the details. There hasn’t been a lot of coverage. Anyway, Kevin Faulconer is a good man and a good Republican. He’s running against a former RINO, current DINO. Now that you’ve gotten all your frustration out, it’s a good time to prove you’re more than just talk.
Mr. Schwartz,
Outstanding point…though I thought that is what Rostra was all about…community of discourse, ideas, expression (talk)…etc..and I assure you, I am a great deal more than talk…as with every (proverbial) engagement….this has just been the sound of the helicopter blades… 🙂 The question is…is it reinforcements…or is it something else? Lol.
Not sure I’m right on any…at least many, issues, but there are a lot of folks I have spoken to that believe I may be…and if the dwindling numbers of the Party membership and participation may be an indication, well, then perhaps there is a real issue there.
I shared with Mr. Brady I would seriously consider coming if I was afforded the opportunity to ask Mr. Faulconer a question…I would even submit it..(Surely do not need the face time)..But he would have to answer it publically…
That would be a real step in the right direction for transparency for which I have been “talking” so much about.
FF
Why not just call Kevin directly and ask it, FF?
BB,
As tempting as that may be, I would like Mr. Faulconer to be publically accountable for his response. He needs to convince me, and thousands (and yes, Michael, maybe ten thousand) that he will not forgo the will of the people as he did with Prop 8. Again, it isn’t the Prop…its he decided unilaterally to ignore the will of the people of California, and tens of thousands in SD County. And it wasn’t some innocuous funding bill or tax measure, or zoning measure…it was perhaps one of the most defining and articulating issues one, as a supposed “Republican” should have considered more carefully before he decided to disregard, not only his own constituients, but his supposed own base…
That just doesn’t pass the smell test…but, you, and Tony, and the rest of the “inner circle” will annoint him because that is what the Lincoln Club will support.
That’s ok..but mark my words, my friend…it will come with a cost.
Enjoy Friess!!
FF is right about one thing – some people don’t much care about what the overall party platform says — but they are ADAMANT about a couple issues. FF will vote against anyone who is not a full-blown social conservative — fiscal issues are secondary to him — and he’s not alone.
But then, for every conservative who stays home, the candidate likely does NOT piss off some moderate voter who ALSO thinks social issues are important — a voter who would just as reflexively vote against FF’s social conservative. This effect is a bigger net negative than what FF’s demographic will do — not vote for anyone in the race.
So yes, a candidate will please some, anger others. It’s the nature of politics.
Practically speaking (and I’m not one to bend to the popular will), in this district, a social moderate has a MUCH better chance to win than a social conservative. In fact, I’m confident that NO social conservative could win the 52nd, regardless of their other positions.
So stay home, FF. Don’t vote, if you are in the 52nd (well, if it’s the runoff and your SC is not one of the two choices –and he won’t be).
The Dem might win in November, but they would win by MORE if somehow a SC made it into the runoff. Do NOT think that SC’s will sway this particular election.
If the 52nd were the East County, that would perhaps not be the case — but in the coastal 52nd, no social conservative will be elected. Bank on it.
Again…seeking clarity…there is a difference in “leading” with “social” issues, “including” them as the platform exemplifies, or disregard them…Where I, and many “full spectrum” Republicans sit is include them…understand they are part of the DNA that has illustrated the Republican platform for decades…what appears to be the “New Generation” (read neo-progressive libertarians) is to politically cauterize any “social issues” the oligarchy of the Central Committee headed by the Commissar deems too “extreme”… so, ignore the convicted members, to attract the potentials, all in the name of political correctness and voting in the “Cool Kid,” all in an attempt to “soften” the image in exchange for the “East County” vote…
That’s ok…I just wish the Neo-Progressives” that have infiltrated the Party were more transparent and upfront about it with the thousands that thought the Republican Party “included” them as well.
“So stay home, FF. Don’t vote, if you are in the 52nd (well, if it’s the runoff and your SC is not one of the two choices –and he won’t be).”
For the faux-Reagan admirers of the RPSD-
“Conservative banners of bold colors, not pale pastels”-Ronald Wilson Reagan
Reagan in 1976 was considered by many establishment types to be outside the “mainstream” of the Republican Party.
The difference between a Kirk Jorgensen and your run-off-the-mill bought and paid for hack pol is he cannot be bribed, he cannot be cajoled, he cannot be intimidated, and he cannot be discouraged. (which of course, is the real reason he will not get the RPSD endorsement…and probably why so many on this site seem SO convinced he can’t compete/receive the nom…makes you go “hum!!)
I’ve spoken with him, seen him speak publically, and get a real feel of the nascent stages of what very well may be a resurgence of grass root, roll up the sleeves, powered by conviction and truth (not by proxy or payback) campaign. He is not Wayne Iverson or Michael Crimmins…he is affable, relatable, competent, humble, FUNDED…and damn tenacious.
People connect with him, see him as the underdog, and admire his conviction, character, and willingness to stop his life and provision to make a better one for his neighbors.
Very saleable!! Truth, conviction, and competency always are.
“A) I don’t read walls of text. Learn how to use the Return key to make paragraphs.”
What a shame…think what you could learn…:) I wonder if Solomon or Marcus Aurelius used a return key…
In all candor, I found the “return” button on my word doc didn’t correlate to the spacing on the comment window…issue averted!!!’
You are now cleared to be elucidated!!
🙂