NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
November 12th, 2013
San Diego, CA – Kirk Jorgensen, Republican candidate to represent California’s 52nd congressional district, released the following statement in response to the endorsement decision by the Republican Party of San Diego County Central Committee:
“I am obviously disappointed, but not at all surprised, by the committee’s decision to endorse my Republican opponent. It’s public knowledge that the Republican Party of San Diego County backed Carl DeMaio in his failed mayoral bid. And, it’s common knowledge in our community that a group of prominent insiders promised to back Carl if he stayed in the race for California’s 52nd, rather than making another attempt for mayor. The central committee’s decision is a mistake and proves once again that political insiders and our party leadership are out of touch with the voters who will ultimately decide which candidate will represent them in Washington. I intend to continue my campaign in an honorable manner to earn the trust and support of the people of the 52nd district.
“Scott Peters has voted time and time again in support of policies that hurt the people of San Diego. We need the best possible candidate to ensure Peters is out of a job next year. I look forward to making my case to the voters in the coming weeks and months to prove that I am that candidate.
“It’s time to end the era of political survivors. Unfortunately, in this respect, there is little difference between Scott Peters and Carl DeMaio. They are ‘political tourists’ who make a career out of traveling from election to election. No matter what their campaign rhetoric, neither candidate is truly looking to lead or fix problems that matter to voters. Running for office is what they do for a living, and it’s time for them to start hunting for another career.
“We have no right to expect different results from Washington if we keep electing the same type of people to represent us. It’s time to send true leaders to Congress, men and women who understand real sacrifice and civic duty. I am honored to have the opportunity to earn the voters’ support.”
Background:
The 52nd Congressional District stretches from Poway to Coronado. The district is home to many of San Diego’s iconic sites and military installations, including Marine Corps Air Station Miramar and Naval Air Station North Island.
Kirk Jorgensen is a longtime San Diego resident. He is a U.S. Marine Corps combat veteran, who deployed to the Middle East and Europe and led teams to combat terrorism around the globe. Jorgensen’s time as an active duty Marine Officer was marked by numerous awards and honors, including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. Most recently, Jorgensen worked in the private sector in San Diego, helping identify technologies that increase the strength of America’s defense capabilities. Kirk, his wife, Dr. Georgine Jorgensen, and their two sons live in the Black Mountain Ranch neighborhood of San Diego.
###
Comments 37
This smacks of resent. So, DeMaio is getting national support and Kirk doesn’t like it. Ok, so let’s send out an ill-advised press release. The noble Kirk, being told what to do by his consultants, obviously. I guess that’s better than switching parties.
I think I speak for many when I say I am sorry you feel this way and that this was your reaction. I haven’t heard a bad word spoken against you (Kirk) by anyone on the Central Committee or any leadership position.
I truly hope that you dust yourself off, for the first time in your life start working to support the Republican Party and its candidates like Carl has done time and time again, and then look for the Central Committee’s support after some real groundwork has been laid.
Right now you are inexperienced and underfunded. Your district and the opportunity to beat Scott Peters are way too important to leave in underfunded, inexperienced hands. The Central Committee is made of hard-working volunteers who were elected by Republican voters. Your representation of what happened is not accurate. Each member made their own decision. For you to suggest otherwise is an insult to all of them, especially the ones who voted to endorse you.
After weighing their options and with Prop 14 taking the Party’s ability to have a primary where Republicans can vote for their own candidate, the Republican Central Committee (elected by the people) made a decision to endorse based on track record and trust.
Carl has a track record and is trusted. He’ll win, he matches his district, he has the money and grassroots support needed, and the reality is he is a proven reformer. Losing an endorsement like this is hard, but truly, the hope is you stick around so that you can earn the support of the elected Republican Central Committee like Carl did.
LCDR Jorgensen is a good man with a promising future in public office if he chooses to pursue it. I have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to meet him, question him about his ideas, and measure both for the endorsement against Mr DeMaio and Dr Simon.
This reaction, while misguided, is understandable from a first-time candidate. Oftentimes, new candidates forget that the very people who deliberate over these endorsements are paid exactly as much as the candidate is; zero. I am confident that, as Kirk understands this simple truth, he’ll see the committee as an ally in future pursuits.
Thank you, Flounder, for the tip-of-the-hat…what seems obvious was the smugness, as dripping from you in your gleeful touch down spike above, that reeks of breath-taking relief and un-earned accolades.
Well done!
No one person…not even the CC members slinking out of the meeting after staring at their moral reflections of political expediency and abandoning decades of Republican legacy, while feverishly tossing the platform of the Republican Party right under the pop-culture bus, thinks this process was ever meant to be “fair.”
As we saw many committee members texting and emailing well into the voting process, as the canddates spoke and other CC members were speaking, after Mr. Jorgensen’s supporters knocked the socks of the establishment, followed by the stark contrasting presence of Jorgensen vs. DeMaio, does anyone think for one minute that Carl, and the senior leadership, weren’t rocked by the throngs of newcomers and those first time participants stimulated and motivated to get into the process for Kirk Jorgensen?…(it was all over their faces as Jorgensen spoke..you could here the collective “oh sh*t!”)…and the CC of the RPSDC proceeded to kick a course-changing opportunity right into the stands from the countless number of losses the party has taken over the last several years (including the guy they just endorsed who lost to Bob Filner!!), or the tens of thousands of former Republicans that have left the party over the last five years, and they blew it!
They blew it… royally!
Everything Jorgensen depicted in his release is true…(hence the snide comments from the Flounders of the world…the truth hurts) and there are scores of former CC members, candidates, and thousands of former registered Republicans that know…KNOW…it to be true. That is why there is such a struggle for the future of the Republican Party (i.e. Ted Cruz vs. McCain, McCarthy, and McClintock)…The path could not be more clear, or more opposed; The “New” generation, exemplified by the radical and liberally-agreed upon positions of Carl DeMaio, aligned with the liberal-democratic incumbent, and the Next Generation as illustrated and articulated by the Marine Combat Veteran and proven and effective leader on the battlefield, and the children that came out with their parents to voice just that.
The Chinese have a phrase that best illustrates the results of last night’s theatre of the absurd…
“May you live in interesting times….”…It is not a salutation…it is a curse.
somebody call the waaaambulance!!!!
The RPSDC CC received a reality kick in the political jiblees from a guy that has been doing this for only 4 months against a guy who has been living this for 8 years…with countless races, and formidable losses; against a guy who has a couple 100k in the bank, versus a professional perennial and political campaign war chest that has over a million, and from a guy that doesn’t have the endorsements of the RINOs across the spectrum…and Jorgensen narrowly missed it by one vote!
One…(One wonders what the actual outcome could have truly been without the insider baseball and secret meetings with discussions of candidates)
By all measures, that was a monumental and tremendous showing against the establishment machine. And now that he needn’t kow-tow to the oligarchy, he is free and clear to stay right on DeMaio’s six…that sound in DeMaio’s helmut from now until Jun will be Jorgensen..locked on and keeping him honest and having him looking over his political shoulder…
Hello RPSDC…is anyone home? (crickets…)
80,000 republicans have left the party in the past several years in the county…an astonishing number…the “waaambulance” just whooshed by….
Curious to see if the Anointed Prince will actually keep his promise to debate Jorgensen…we won’t hold our breath. The optics are lousy (and man, was that evident last night!!)…
“That is why there is such a struggle for the future of the Republican Party (i.e. Ted Cruz vs. McCain, McCarthy, and McClintock)”.
Which might explain the Committee’s decision:
http://sdrostra.com/?p=35714
By the way, speaking of “slithering”, it would have been awfully polite to accept my offer, to buy you a beer, IF you were there last night. I can appreciate the need for anonymous comments on a political blog but am baffled at your rejection of my invitation.
Call me old-fashioned but I still believe in the power of a handshake and forthright introduction.
Kids these days…
Author
FF:
“…and Jorgensen narrowly missed it by one vote!”
Missed what by one vote?
What doesn’t explain the decision is the continued poor choices being made year in and year out…The conservatives will not show up now…that isn’t an opinion…it is a disturbing fact. That spells a death nail for DeMaio against Peters. The fact that you guys simply will not, or perhaps are unable to, fathom that is the real question…
Arrived late, Brian…sorry you felt slighted in some way..it wasn’t deliberate. I was hiding in plain sight! 🙂
I was wondering that myself. In a two-thirds situation, there is only one way for a person to gain endorsement and the other to be able to claim they missed it by one vote. With three voters.
I’m surprised no one called for a quorum!
It is my understanding that the CC members had a tally where Jorgensen missed the blocking of the endorsement of DeMaio outright by one vote. Meaning, had one other vote gone his way, it would have blocked the Party endorsement of Demaio and allowed the voting electorate to decide directly opposed to the year-out party endorsement of DeMaio.
Of course, not only does that open the funding, advertisement, and national attention to DeMaio, but it also prohibits those Jorgensen supports within the party apparatus to support or assist Jorgensen in anyway for fear of disciplinary action and potential removal from the CC. So, one person, out of some 49 in a congressional district making up hundreds of thousands of people has blocked the eligibility of an impressive up and coming leader to where he is now forced to run as an outsider…an insurgent. This is where he has been from the beginning…now it’s just official.
Many of the Reaganites can appreciate that!
As we say in Naval Aviation…Fights On! 🙂
“Of course, not only does that open the funding, advertisement, and national attention to DeMaio, but it also prohibits those Jorgensen supports within the party apparatus to support or assist Jorgensen in anyway for fear of disciplinary action and potential removal from the CC”
Absolutely. positively, and completely incorrect, Had you had the courage to take me up on my offer, you would have understood the process before you made hasty conclusions.
“Arrived late, Brian…sorry you felt slighted in some way..it wasn’t deliberate. I was hiding in plain sight! ”
Fair enough. Apology accepted. Of COURSE I felt slighted when I read you attended. As such, my last comment about your “courage” is retracted (I didn’t see your apology)
I take relationships seriously and we’ve established a virtual one. If we are to affect meaningful change in this country, the relationships must go beyond the virtual and into real life
FF-The June Primary is still called that, but it is only nominally. It is really a General Election Because of the Insidious Prop 14, which established Open primaries and “Top-Two” elections, like it our not The June election CANNOT pick a candidate to run in November by Republican-only votes. Like it or not (and I don’t like it, nor do probably all of the Central Committee Member like it) The only way the Republican Party has any say who it’s candidates are is to endorse> We hope Prop 14 is overturned.
So the Central Committee is tasked with this. And I take great umbrage (that’s the nicest word I can think of) that you call into question the honor of Central Committee Members own decisions concerning how they each vote in the endorsement process. Each member votes their own opinions, for their own reasons and with their own consciences. The endorsement decision in the 52nd was personally for me the hardest decision I have had to make as a Central Committee Member. But I made it answering my own opinions, reasons and conscience. You may not agree with those decisions. But it is a great responsibility that we as Central Committee Members have to make them. If you are who I think you are, you are someone I respect greatly because of who you are and your principles. I would hope that you would respect mine and (and ours) the same.
Kurt, There is a stiff breeze blowing. The Central Committee will eventually remove the nose from the political crapper. The groupies will be yours to choose. Carl is a filner Zombie. Enjoy the campaign. Hook up with one of the younger Bilbrays. They know grass rootage. This district will be won or lost in La Jolla.
Contrary to the Central Committee, this race will be fresh and exciting.
Thanks Brian. No secret, you and I have deep differences in the direction, foundation, and remedies for the future of the party.(actually, millions of republicans do) Given. I do appreciate your conviction, precious time, and efforts… I happen to believe its are admirable “thrust” just pointed in the wrong direction… 🙂 You…you’re a stand up guy!
OK..however, regarding my earlier comments about restrictions on current CC members and their ability to support Jorgensen, I am simply reflecting the RPSDC Bylaws…which read:
Section 2.01.05 Discipline of Members
“The Committee may remove any member who during his or her term of membership affiliates with, or registers as a member of another party, who publicly advocates that the voters should not vote for an endorsed candidate of this party for any office, or who gives support to or avows a preference for a candidate of another party or candidate who is opposed to a candidate endorsed by this party.”
Help me out, Brother…where precisely is that “absolutely, positively, and completely incorrect”?
The way I see it, that now brings controlling pressure from those affiliated with The Federateds, and those with sundry “Patriot” and “TP” organizations also within the CC to suffer the wrath of the Oligarchy…or play RPSDC Secret Police within their respective organizations…so, the 13-14 people that supported Jorgensen in the CC who may be affiliated with these other groups…are you saying they are not in fear of reprisal or sanction in someway where they are stifled and restricted to share their personal convictions as articulated by Jorgensen’s campaign to the hundreds, if not thousands of members of those affiliated organizations?
Do those 13-14 members of the CC who believe as Jorgensen’s campaign does now have to skulk in fear as to what they do, or with whom they affiliate regarding Jorgensen’s efforts to proceed now that Papa Doug, et al, have executed their original plan? Does the RPSDC become the Thought Police and bullying arm of the DeMaio campaign in this regard?
If so, do you believe, Brother, that will win more members to the Party, or alienate them? Of the thousands of like minded voters represented by the scores, if not hundreds of Jorgensen supporters represented that night, are we to believe, as depicted in the bylaws above, that leadership and CC members will actively rebuke and threaten those compelled by their convictions exemplified by Jorgensen’s positions and efforts?
Lee,
Thank you….and no, it isn’t the (your) honor I question, my Friend (especially yours…and yes, I am who you think I am)…it is the wisdom and the apparent abandoning of core party platform issues that were summarily thrown under the bus that night…all in the name of getting the “New Generation” Kid on the block out in front for reasons we ALL know have very little to do with “reform.” Of course, that will be perverted and manipulated to sound intolerant..but it isn’t…it is the opposite of that…it is honest open discernment. Mr. DeMaio, for all his political experience, all the contrived “reform” and “Congress First” rhetoric possesses two key positions that are identical to Scott Peters, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton…two issues that are foundational…fundamental to what draws millions to the Republican Party, and have kept them there for decades…
Monday night that changed…perhaps irrevocably. However, that is precisely what the “New Generation” advocates..Mr. DeMaio said it himself..”We can no longer be the party of “no”, the party of old white men…” Talk about tolerance.
Lee, as you may know I have been a republican my whole life..three generations of Republicans…and not country club types…hard working, middle class, small business Republicans. I have a picture with my parents with me at 2 years old in a diaper and a Goldwater hat sitting on my desk when they were his campaign leads in the Bay Area back in 1964…my allegiance and bona vides regarding the life long dedication and loyalty with the Republican Party is beyond reproach.
That is why I am so adamant about witnessing the implosion, and hijacking of the platform all in the name of political “pragmatism” and expediency. I do not know how you voted Lee…it isn’t a witch hunt Im interested in…however, in addition to the two or so folks that said they were going to vote for Kirk, they didn’t…they lied to him, or gave all the indicators that they were…and they didn’t…not to mention the others, perhaps that had to hold their nose to “go along” to get along.”
The indictment, if there is one, is in the process, My Friend. I will let the consciences of the individual members simmer as they will when we elect a Pro-Abortion, Anti-Marriage candidate from the Republican Party…in addition to all the other flaws Mr. DeMaio brings to the “fight.” (maybe I am missing a step, but didn’t he lose to Bob Filner?….BOB FILNER!)
“are you saying they are not in fear of reprisal or sanction in someway where they are stifled and restricted to share their personal convictions as articulated by Jorgensen’s campaign to the hundreds, if not thousands of members of those affiliated organizations? ”
It would be a mind-blowing precedent. There was an awful lot of leeway in last year’s election cycle. The rule is most likely in place to prevent committee members from openly advocated for Democratic opponents or running against the endorsed candidate.
The ballot was secret so none of us know who voted for whom. A bunch of committee members, not limited to but including the Executive Board, insisted on this provision. That provision alone tells me that any accusations of “being in the tank” are baseless.
The simple fact is that committee members overwhelmingly approve of Carl DeMaio, as do the voters in this District. Kirk is a good man. If he works with Republican volunteers on important issues for a half-decade, like DeMaio did, he should expect similar results
Brian,
Then can you explain the social media and rampant texting and PDA activity during the vote? Doesn’t that negate the notion of a “secret ballot”? Do we know that CC members where not in consultation with one another given the lack of halting all private communication during the “secret vote?”
Given the ubiquitousness and pervasiveness of social media and IPhones, etc…That should have been taken into consideration, don’t you think? It would have been fair, yes?
If this party, and its brand in the San Diego area, are to survive long-term as more than a member comm money laundering operation, then it is is going to have to find a way to invest its members (read: registered Republicans) in the nominating process despite the open primary. Some poster earlier cried victim over Prop 14 (“this is what we have to do! Whaaa!), but Republican parties in other states with open primaries have figured out how to be healthy without divesting large chunks of voters from the process with each candidate selection. Others haven’t, and they fell into oblivion – sometimes despite large bank accounts.
Does anyone think that Prop 14 wasn’t created so that parties would systematically alienate their own voters bit by bit each cycle, destroying the value of their brands to voters in the process? This is falling into that trap.
So much doesn’t make sense about some of these comments.
– Had the Central Committee endorsed Kirk then they wouldn’t be corrupt or out of touch?
– Why would Kirk want the endorsement of a body he feels is corrupt and out of touch?
– If the SD GOP is such a toothless hound then why is anyone worried about who they endorsed?
– If NOT endorsing is what the voters want, then why’d the voters elect 50 Central Committee members who voted to endorse someone Monday night?
– If the voters simply didn’t want Carl then why’d the voters elect 34 Central Committee members who voted to endorse him?
– Did any Central Committee member get any feedback from their constituents asking them to not endorse out of the million or so voters in San Diego County?
– If voters don’t want the Central Committee to endorse then why do so many download their list of endorsed candidates and then vote for them?
– If just the idea of the Central Committee endorsing a candidate is wrong (in your opinion), then endorsing a guy you happen to like equally as wrong, right?
If you don’t like the results, get involved in the process. Understand the role each plays or prepare to live a very frustrating life.
One thing people have to understand…HAVE to understand is that no party enforces their platform. It just doesn’t happen. If you are expecting it to happen, prepare to live a very frustrating life.
What they do:
Register voters
Run candidates
Recruit volunteers
Get out the vote
Raise money to do the first 4 things.
If you don’t like the candidate who won, then your group didn’t do a good enough job making your candidate viable and successful. If you aren’t a part of a group and simply expect people to do what you want without having to influence them, prepare to lead a very frustrating life.
In two words, it does make sense: Sour Grapes.
So Michael, if the role of the party is to:
Register voters
Run candidates
Recruit volunteers
Get out the vote
Raise money to do the first 4 things
…then how do you feel about endorsements what whittle away the base’s willingness to contribute to any of the above – particularly considering that in every category except bank balance, the party has regressed since 2004/6. That’s right, we had a better electoral record, and even a registration advantage in those years despite budgets that were a fraction of what they are today. You may ask how? The answer is an organization that focused on bringing republicans together around our candidates and common principles, which included an endorsement process that invested them in the nominating process such that even losing sides were incentivized to support the eventual nominee and continue participating.
Yes, this is sour grapes. Not for Jorgensen (I would bitch just as loudly if he’d been the nominee – same if the party had endorsed Fletcher over DeMaio), but for a common cause we all should have: the longevity of the party and its brand as an effective electoral force.
Michael,
Though I appreciate your idealistic view of the “noble” process, no one believes that is all that is happening. If that is all the RPSDC leadership and the CC members “do”, then why the “secret” meeting with Papa Doug, et al….God help you, and the GOP, if you do beleieve that.
Analysis and unpacking the process, contrary to quip, glib comments, is not sour grapes. DeMaio did win the coveted endorsement. Bravo!
He hasn’t won the race!
D. Morton,
I’m not sure any of my questions really pertain to you. You sound consistent in your views.
It’s been my experience that much of what you’re talking about has to do with groups and individuals who left because the party won’t enforce the platform. This might not be the case with you specifically, but with many, many others.
And the reality is the party won’t, it’s not their role, so we all need to understand and work within that reality.
Another good point I learned is to stop crying and be a part of the efforts if you’d like to see changes.
Another point…you won’t help the party because of one endorsement??? Put your big-boy pants on and help one of the hundreds of other candidates in San Diego. Good grief! Give up much?
You can’t possibly register a voter ever again because Carl got an endorsement? Really? Chris Cate can’t get you to walk a precinct because Carl is endorsed? Some guy running for school board can’t get some help placing yard signs until your hissy fit is over?
It’s no secret how I feel about Sheriff Gore. Guess what? He got the endorsement. So, I could fall into a heap on the cold tile floor and curl up into the fetal position or I could not lift a finger to help his campaign and only help those who I agree with while looking for the next sheriff who will win after Gore decides to leave.
I think I’ll suck it up and do that second one.
One of the brightest guys I know recently asked if a candidate is running for the Republican Party endorsement, or running for Congress. He should take credit for that if he so chooses. It is food for thought, however.
Michael,
Not to be a “butinsky”, but I can relate a little with the premise of your criticism. For those “hung up” on particular “platform issues” it is a matter of deep conviction…yes, some of it steeped in faith and religious moral conviction. (Like when we all bowed our heads in reverence when the invocation is given at the RPSDC meetings in the name of Jesus Christ…)
If the platform is like an airplane, then some are ok with flying in it if it is painted a different color, or some new avionics adaptation is placed on it, or if it receives a new fuel tank, etc..or others could still fly if the paint was stripped, or the HF radio was removed, or a particular electric system is prone to kick off line occasionally…what many, if their safety is analogous to their conviction, simply will not fly in an airplane that has an aileron removed, or has a massive fuel leak, or has a huge crack in the main wing spar…For them, like the airplane, they realize the party (the plane, the platform) is no longer morally “safe” and they simply are making a choice about the conviction (safety or morality) which they are no longer able to “board the plane” (remain with a Party that is missing a moral or conviction “rudder”).
Carl DeMaio, and his positions on both the Sanctity of Life and Marriage for thousands of Republican “passengers” is simply a political “plane” they will not fly in. It may look like a viable plane from the outside, and many within the ticket office may be compelled to say “but its still a plane…what’s the big deal..what are you afraid of”…babies…put your big-boy pants on..”?
For many, whether you agree or not, believe or not, or understand or not, think voting for DeMaio, given his positions on these key and (formerly) advocated platform items, is the spiritual and moral equivalent of “crashing.” Perhaps you might ask yourself what existing platform would be the one, or couple, that you felt you could no longer “fly on this plane?” Supporting massive regulation, union support, massive tax increases, gutting national defense for domestic entitlement programs? Over-reaching gun control? Mandatory gay-sensitivity classes taught to your 8 year old?
For some, they see the wholesale abandonment on these core issues as perhaps the beginning of a fundamental change in what once constituted the Republican Party.
If it were something with which you had an equally as valuable and moral conviction…would you still support the candidate or party advocating that position you found morally unacceptable?
Its not a rhetorical question? I’m truly curious… 🙂
FF
I didn’t read the plane thing. It got boring.
But…to clarify, I want people in the Republican Party with deep, moral convictions. Every Republican I know has deep convictions and wants others to as well. If you are involved in politics and do not have deep convictions then you are a consultant. ZING!
Nobody is asking you to back Carl.
Go back someone who is pro-life. The Party backs tons of pro-life candidates. Go raise some money for one or walk a precinct for one. Go join the leadership of a group that is pro-life, find a candidate, and guide him/her into running.
“One of the brightest guys I know recently asked if a candidate is running for the Republican Party endorsement, or running for Congress.”
That’s good advice. When candidates become preoccupied with the RPSDC endorsement, and lose it, they essentiifally stipulate defeat. I know of at least two elected officials who ran for, and won, the office rather than the committee’s endorsement.
I won’t address LCDR Jorgensen but rather his supporters here– help your candidate by registering Republicans, asking those people to donate to Jorgensen’s campaign, and helping him build a ground game for GOTV in June. Bitching at the committee on a blog won’t win an election
Michael: you’re quick to talk about conviction, realities, and tell others that they should suck it up and toe the line. But the reality is that people do have convictions, and they will only support the party as long as the party is consistent with those principles. Rather than it being uniformly their job to play for the team, isnt it also in the party’s interest to create institutional policies (i.e. a platform; endorsement rules) that bring together the groups that will create a winning coalition? And invest them in the process so that even when they lose one, its in their best interest to remain in the coalition?
Its convenient to see a group walking away and write it off as sour grapes, particularly when you like the outcome. But when coalitions become ad hoc around candidates, it means that the problem is systematic, and therefore institutional. The tough thing to do is show the leadership that is required for the winning side to give something up to the other groups for the sake of investing the losers into a long-term winning coalition.
..too bad, I was sincerely looking forward to read what issue you would have found the moral equivalent to why thousand of your like-minded voters which feel marginalized by a party that is no longer following its own stated platform, will not show up next November to vote. Then perhaps the “airplane” analogy would have been more relevant…oh well.
However, I can’t prescribe to the “everyone has convictions” theory..not sure what “deep” moral conviction can be aligned with the tacit allowance/acceptance/conditions for killing unborn children… little too naive for my taste..but, you keep believin’ 🙂 That’s between you, and the ‘Guy” who’s name we opened the RPSDC meeting the other night for with an invocation…again, if you go for that kind of thing.
But just to assuage any concerns you may have, and because I do believe what and who was invoked at the beginning of that meeting, I am backing a Republican candidate who does share those “deep convictions” to full extent that I can…Kirk Jorgensen.
Brian,
I still believe Jorgensen, all the way up at the top of this “bitch” session, was speaking from the heart, and with the true state of affairs. He wasn’t surprised…no surprise there…So, your guy got the nod…good for you..makes the “bitching” less relevant for those seeking that outcome (I can only imagine what we would be reading if DeMaio had been blocked…”Those intolerant Republicans..blah, blah)….I’m sure you watch post-game analysis on Sunday..its essentially the same thing.
Have no illusions..I am confident, as with all post-op After Action reviews, Mr. Jorgensen and his team will not lament “defeat”..in fact, far from it. Compared to the 8 years DeMaio has been living this perpetual campaigning, ole’ Jorgensen is performing remarkably well. I think you said as such yourself.
Marines by training, especially certified Case Officers, are extremely adaptive…
So, the first quarter is over..DeMaio is up by 3 (given he only eked out a one vote advantage in stopping Jorgensen from blocking the endorsement, can’t give him a TD)…as they say in the SEALs…Easy Day!
I didn’t say toe the line. You said toe the line. Those aren’t my words.
What I am saying is if you want to do one or more of the 5 things the party does (register, candidates, volunteers, get out the vote, raise money), then come help the party.
If you want to work on a specific issue or issues (pro-life, taxes, guns, etc), join a group that helps advance that issue.
Frankly, I have explained this to a number of activist types and they got it, understand it, and choose to work within that reality.
And all I see in these conversations is people like me, Tony, and Brian Brady and more inviting (begging) people to get involved, asking for their influence, and letting them know how to be most effective. It kinda flies in the face of the out-of-touch, totalitarian narrative some are trying to portray when it comes to the local GOP.
@FF: Good luck. I have my personal choice but local Republicans are fortunate to have three outstanding candidates. Any one of them will be a vast improvement over Scott Pelosi
Does this sound like “toe the line”?…
“I want people in the Republican Party with deep, moral convictions. Every Republican I know has deep convictions and wants others to as well … Nobody is asking you to back Carl. Go back someone who is pro-life. The Party backs tons of pro-life candidates. Go raise some money for one or walk a precinct for one. Go join the leadership of a group that is pro-life, find a candidate, and guide him/her into running.”
Uhhhh, no, it sounds nothing like toe the line.
Brian,
Thanks…Marines are not known for “quitting.”…and they aren’t shy of courage either 😉
For Michael, if you had read the “airplane” thing, then you would have understood that I am not a “component” (single issue) guy, I am an “airplane” (Conservative Republican) guy..but, some components are essential to produce flight, others are not..I, and thousands of other Republicans don’t glam onto a single issue as the only thing that brought us to the Republican Party…but with out them, it ceases to be the “airplane” we can fly in. If perhaps the leadership better understood that, then when the vetting starts, the “private” meetings take place, and the process begins, conservatives, whether labeled Tea Party, social conservatives, or “moral” majority types might actually feel included and empowered to support in ways you described above. They will not do that if “components” they find essential for “flight” are ignored or marginalized, even ridiculed and vilified.i.e Mr. DeMaio’s antithetical positions on the Sanctity of Life and Marriage.