Comments 43

  1. If his support for Anderson’s really based on Diane having “violated” people’s property rights, then he’d better brace himself: if Anderson wins there will be a lot more.

  2. It is interesting to watch the Chairman come out so definitive on where Ms Jacob isn’t representing or emulating stated GOP principles; he resided and played chief cheerleader over both the support and endorsement of both Kevin Faulconer and Carl DeMaio-both pro-abortion and pro-SSM….not staunch GOP tenets last time I googled the GOP platform and principles. (…and we now see the sticky second order affects where more and more people are seeing the erosion of foundational religious freedoms in support and tacit advancing of these two progressive issues)

    Apparently, some GOP tenets are just more equal than others…and if the SDGOP doesn’t like them, they ignore them, and then reside over those attack dogs who then turn to and fervently vilify and demonize once loyal and ardent GOP supporters that call them out on their hypocrisy. (and then lament how they culd take measures to oppose their un-republican efforts)

    While I do not know precisely what Ms. Jacobs’ GOP sins are other than recounted by the Chairman, I know that the party has lost 85K members under the Chairman’s tenure. Perhaps he should rethink throwing stones in glass houses.

  3. FF,

    Of course some Party tenets are more important than others, just like some Biblical tenets are more important than others. Or do you believe that working on Sunday or taking the Lord’s name in vain are equal sins to stealing or murder?

  4. Just like the most liberal tenet takes all precedent. “What ever the righties are for, then we are against.”

  5. HQ,

    You of all commenters should see that hypocrisy is corrosive…while you and I rarely agree on much, we can agree I’m sure that hypocrisy weakens any position, any argument, any chance for promoting one’s beliefs or principles, which may contribute to the continuing mass exodus of formerly staunch and dedicated Republicans in SD.

    Tens of thousands of (former) Republicans in SD County disagree with what SDGOP now believes is “important” (perhaps what is no longer “important” is more accurate)…while you may not agree, their concerns and what they consider important have been minimalized and marginalized when just a few years ago the SDGOP Chairman himself was touting the GOP as the party of marriage (in this case, they and the democrats seem equally as comfortable supporting policies accosting religious freedoms, and tacitly fueling neo-fascist mobs terrorizing owners of small town family-run pizza parlors)…again, it isn’t the specific tenet, its the ease at which hypocrisy is wielded.

    ..and wrt relativism of the weight of God’s declared sins…that’s not my call 🙂

  6. Looks to me like both FF and Hypocrisy are right. Ostensibly, the GOP does of course have principles, but, on virtually every level, these have taken a distant back seat–a very back of the bus seat–to the sort of petty, conniving, Machiavellian calculations that guide people like Tony Krvaric and Joel Anderson. Sad to see it unabashedly at work, right here in our own backyard.

  7. Time to get rid of Krvaric. All he is good at doing is losing elections time and time again– why is this guy still chairman is beyond me.

  8. If only for the sake of novelty, maybe he should try operating on the basis of principle. The results might surprise him.

  9. Having principles is good. Having the ability to sell your principles to others is better.

  10. FF,

    Many sinners consider themselves religious and are welcomed with open arms by The Church. I don’t think it is unreasonable for the Republican Party to accept those who don’t agree with every one of their platform positions.

  11. HQ,

    Again, we agree…what isn’t acceptable is a level of hypocrisy that damages credibility. Hypocrites knowingly drape themselves in religious and pious regalia, rhetoric, and circumstance…so do many political posers and faux-Republicans slipping in the word “conservative” in their talking points, hoping that in and of itself will assuage their anti-Conservative actions. Remorseful sinners, or misguided politicos (Reagan the former Dem), can be certainly be tolerated (and with Christ, forgiven)…hypocrites, purposefully acting one way while claiming another, not so much.

  12. Post
    Author
  13. founding father

    Remorseful sinners, or misguided politicos (Reagan the former Dem), can certainly be tolerated

    Im sorry but are you saying ronald reagan can be “tolerated”?

  14. Chris,

    I’m saying even a former Dem can be tolerated…Reagan epitomizes this point, and in his case he is venerated….vice openly and continued hypocrites saying one thing and doing another under the GOP or conservative moniker.

    I believe the current Chairman makes a very weak case for Republicans when he and the SDGOP leadership have been neglectful/indifferent of a huge bloc within the GOP in an attempt to shift leftward by abandoning key GOP tenets and long standing ideology all in the name of “pragmatism” to sway more ostensibly moderate, socially ambivalent voters. It was a gamble they took…and it didn’t work in the last congressional election. They alienated more Repulicans than they swayed moderates/left-leaning indies…

    Dozens of former dedicated, hardworking, influential, and experienced politicallt active people have left the GOP in SD just in the last few years as a result of the increasingly hostile atmosphere created by the SDGOP towards “those Christians” as was infamously relayed.

    Now if we only had a Reagan nowadays…..alas, in the current party, he wouldn’t make it past the Central Committee.

  15. Question for Founding Father: Recently I was told by a former office holder (fairly highly placed, long record in the East County…) that Anderson had the mega-church voters pretty well locked up.

    Do you agree?

  16. FF, you’re picking the wrong hill to defend.

    Jacob is horrible on property rights, came out against Life Perspectives (2010), and voted against the Bill of Rights.

    Joel received the RLCSD endorsement prior to RPSDC. Most grass roots conservatives are planning her retirement party.

  17. FF has his typical complaint backwards. Isn’t Jacob the one that is more socially liberal? Why wouldn’t he support Tony in his goal of replacing Jacob with Anderson. At almost every level, Anderson is closer to FF on social issues than Jacob.

    Makes me think that FF likes to complain for the sake of complaining.

  18. Any traditional, social issues-oriented conservative who says Joel Anderson isn’t one of them isn’t someone to be asking such a question about mega-churches, or may not follow East County politics.

    FF is not involved in East County politics.

    If someone thinks that simply because Krvaric or the Party is supporting him, that makes Anderson a liberal, also doesn’t know a thing about the candidate or the situation.

    This is not the DeMaio-Jorgensen race. No comparison.

    Look at Anderson’s record in Sacramento.

  19. I asked if FF agreed that Anderson had more purchase with that constituency–the “surfer church” members–than Jacob.

    Is that an affirmative?

  20. My suggestion is that FF may not know the answer.

    But, by mega-churches, I initially thought you meant large, traditional conservative/evangelical churches, such as Skyline, Shadow Mountain, Foothills Christian Fellowship, Sonrise, etc.

    By “surfer” chuches, you might mean larger ones with younger people that may not be as conservative on social issues, such as the Rock.

    With the first type, no question. As well as with Catholic churches.

    The second type, still yes, but not as strongly as the first most likely.

  21. Brian, et al- I’m not defending Anderson…I don’t know the man. My original point of contention (“complaints” for my detractors) is watching the Chairman weigh in and defending “GOP” principles…Nor do I believe this is the KJ-CD rematch..I think we’re all over that…

    At this point, many are not sure what “GOP” principles as defined by the actual Republicans are anymore…again, just a few years ago, it was all about defending marriage…that became politically cumbersome (actually warrants “homophobe” ad hominem attacks from some within the party offcials), so they abandoned it..So Jacob abandons Tony’s so-called principles…isn’t turn around fair play?

    Why is it any current or former Republican should be concerned about shaving off some of the time-honored ideals and tenets..after all, we dumped two fairly foundational and monumental ones in the last two year..if not officially, at least in their rhetoric, endorsements, and actions..so..so what?

    Last year it was marriage and life, this year its taxes…maybe by 16 the GOP will back more gun control…whereever the “pragmatic” winds take us…right?

    The country is clearly “evolving” on all these issues…time the leadership get with the program…personally, maybe some of the fat-cats need to pay a little more..its the moral and just thing..equality!

  22. Update-

    Having heard from some well informed church and conservative leaders (and a few former RPSDC officials), it appears the verdict, from them, is Anderson is very much in the lane for many faith-hearted voters (not sure on the Mega-vs.Surfer/Rock schism)…and while I don’t purport to know much about E.County inside political baseball, I have been told recently that there are well respected Republicans and backers supporting Jacob.

    I have every reason to believe BB-I’m sure she is abysmal on issues many Republicans; especially those less socially oriented, more fiscally and constitutionally focused Republicans…but I’m sure they are prepared to grin and bear it just as the conservatives did with CD and KF endorsements and elections after the wholesale abandonment of their prized tenets.

    Isn’t this “evolving/relativistic” slippery-slope construct that has been laid out by the SDGOP leadership great? One thing is for sure, it will be interesting watching the Cruz and Paul wings slug it out for “ideological” preeminence.

  23. I see.
    In that case, FF’s claim that Krvaric has invariably pulled the party leftward might not be true in the case his advocacy of Anderson. In an Anderson vs. Jacob race, Anderson might (on some issues, anyway) be portrayed as the more conservative candidate.

  24. historically the most attractive positions offered by the Republican party have been economical. 99% of America has suffered pain in their personal fiances due to the left. Significantly fewer Americans have suffered lasting visceral pain as a result of liberal social engineering. The best doctors prioritize the ailments of their patient.

  25. I’m not sure Faith-conscious small business owners now concerned about being bum-rushed by jack-booted Bolsheviks who are hell-bent on denying them their religious freedoms would agree.

    Perhaps all the teenage girls at public schools who will have to deal with the one transgender boy showering in the girls bathrooms..and their parents, might disagree. Or what about the Junior High school “health” class that depicts sodomy in what formerly was about reproductive science…this is tee-ed up with legislation and policies all over the country affecting millions of families.

    While I agree the left decimates economic growth, I think progressive-rooted agendas tacitly advanced by self-deluded Republicans have brought us beyond 1% now….and there are those, Republicans and on this site, that will think those that see this “socially engineered” problem are therefore “homophobes” and “intolerant”…

    Again, my original issue is the Chairman presiding over a party that lost 85K registered voters during his tenure; if a conservative estimate of 30% of them believe as I do that issues of GOP concern transcend the simple economics, then thats over 25K of voters in SDC that think these pesky social issues matter.

    That’s a real problem…and one the Chairman and his EC either don’t know about, or one they don’t care about…it’s either ignorance or negligence…either way, its destroying the Republican Party as we have known it here in SD.

  26. “Last year it was marriage and life, this year its taxes…maybe by 16 the GOP will back more gun control…where ever the “pragmatic” winds take us…right?”

    Don’t think, for a moment, that our exchanges have fallen on deaf ears. Grover Norquist once defined the Reagan’s three-legged stool as the “Leave Us Alone Coalition” meaning, quite simply, that gun owners, business owners, and home-schooling Christians would defend each others’ right to be “left alone” from government intrusion.

    REFERENCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leave_Us_Alone_Coalition

    Prop 8 fractured that coalition. In my opinion, Prop 8 was akin to business owners asking for subsidies or gun owners passing mandatory firearms ownership. I expected it to end in judicial fiat and general mistrust within the Leave Us Alone Coalition.

    Now, business owners are delighted to watch their competition slammed by Big Gay and gun owners seem too interested on expanding the NRA membership rolls by embracing the idea of “shooting straight” is all that matters.

    I thought Prop 8 was an overreach because it sought to violate the principle of “Leave Us Alone”. If cultural conservatives can convince the economic and constitutional conservatives that they seek protection FROM, rather than to advance ideas THROUGH government, this thing can be salvaged

  27. Brian,

    Great point-

    I don’t disagree with you, in part- I think Prop 8 was a natural reaction to the increased moral atrophy and insidious encroachment brought on by liberal-secular-progressive ideals in direct contrast to foundational American tenets (in this case, the demise of the family; the disaster of black urban families over the last 5 decades in the absence of fathers and destruction of intact marriages, more children born out of wedlock, etc. is exhibit “A”).

    While many (relatively) like-minded/oriented people can debate where these lines of delineation for the friction and thus reaction to the incursion of liberal-progressive agendas exist, Prop 8 drew a line…for some it was too much, others it was a public decree that “enough-is-enough.” Again, good people have disagreed as to its merit and constitutionality, etc..

    The real friction point comes back to credibility; how will the SDGOP put that “toothpaste” back in the tube where it is bleeding out GOP registered voters at the rate of over 10K a year for eight years as it vacillates with long-recognized and formerly defended positions, then appear “indignant” and “fixing bayonets” when other GOP officials (for whatever reason) disagree. Is not Jacob just an extension of a left-lurching ideology (albeit covering a crass political agenda)? What about when some innovative and pragmatic new GOP candidate discovers that the thousands of nervous and protective North County Soccer Mommies might actually be “evolving” on the 2A…and in the name of safety, perhaps “some” (to be defined later) “controls” might be prudent and attractive to an entire generation that has no familiarity, understanding, or recognition of the vital role private gun ownership as related to a well-armed citizenry plays in the cornerstone of our Republic? Why not? We have a generation that ostensibly believes the family as defined by OM/OW doesn’t affect the family, the rearing of children, or the fabric of society.

    20 years ago, Clinton backed DOMA; 8 years ago, BHO backed it…just over 2 years ago, TK and the SDGOP backed it…now we have high-level private and public officials being openly vilified and in some cases run out on rails (the recent CEO who donated to a Prop 8 support PAC, or Pence for that matter) by a partisan and complicit media because they believe in religious freedom and will debate, argue, and oppose encroachments on those freedoms.

    What makes any sentient being remotely politically astute think that can’t/won’t happen with property rights, taxes, or the 2A?

    It comes back to moral conviction in the face of perceived political compromise at the cost of the foundations and tenets that made the Republican Party “Grand,” and the steadfast political alternative to an increasing secular, progressive, libertine onslaught to America’s Exceptionalism…warts and all.

  28. BB FF

    You make good points. But in a state that is moving away from a democracy and towards an idiocracy. You cannot combat the stupidity and ignorance with intelligent and detailed talking points.

    If a knowledgeable individual such as myself loses interest after two paragraphs, how are you going to maintain the interest of the average voter (as seen on Waters World) who thinks Grover Norquist is a character on Sesame Street?

  29. One more thing

    Its not Kvaric’s fault for losing GOP registrations. From the many former republicans I talk to. They cite the IRS scandal and the open primary as the culprit behind them going DTS or not re-registering to vote after they move.

    To that I offer this solution.

    Get a Republican president in.
    Gut the IRS.
    Enact an executive order moving election day to tax day.
    Watch Democratic power shrink like Rocky Mountain Oysters on a cold day.
    Founding Father. Then you will get EVERYTHING you want.

  30. Post
    Author

    There is a difference between losing and loosing. We’re tired of correcting it.

    Hint, hint.

  31. Chris- lol…that is the rub-

    I believe the GOP has drifted from clear, concise, and salient tenets to more amorphous and ambiguous ones…take the painful rewording of many websites for Republicans…“support of the family” and that of “family health”…tangled and fumbling diatribes on what formerly were clear and concise issues of marriage and protection of the unborn. Expect more as the GOP allows to be pulled farther to the squishy middle ground. These well-defined and recognized tenets could then be referred to and the majority would know precisely what that meant…now, we parcel out what a conservative is; social, constitution, fiscal, cultural, defense…we now pick and choose what fits the narrow, often progressively/PC fueled “right answer” that meets slick consultant polling data and neglect the other time-honored and recognized tenets that defined the foundational principles of the GOP…all in the name of “pragmatism.”

    The Left saw the prized high-ground of academia and public education decades ago; hence the “idiotocricy” you spoke of…we lost that a long time ago. Now we need to essentially “relearn” what was considered commonsense and common place just a few years ago…

  32. Hard to pinpoint loss in GOP registrations as being due to a “move to the middle”. Fact is, Americans of all ideologies are disillusioned with politics and both parties. Registering as DTS give them more independence, and it’s a very popular move. Since 1998, even the California Democrats have lost voters to DTS registrations. It’s a perfect storm of disillusionment with the political system, and frustration at the Republican Party.

    But this is a topic I expect to get nowhere on.

  33. Getting back to Joel Anderson…
    Maybe county Republicans would do better if they backed candidates with integrity who DIDN’T support progressive green energy schemes at the expense of local communities.

  34. What’s puzzling about this long discussion is that Jacob defenders seem offended that a credible Republican backed by a substantial number of supporters would choose to run against her — that somehow it’s wrong to do so.

    Arguably Anderson more closely adheres to core GOP tenets than Jacob, but I can understand supporting either horse in this race. And there’s no threat that such a contest will open the back door for a Democrat to win — not in this solid GOP district.

    So why the hostility?

  35. Richard,

    Speaking only for myself, while I find two-faced political posers like Anderson offensive (shouldn’t we all, as voters?) I’m certainly not personally “offended” at the prospect of a challenger–whatever his conservative credentials–throwing his hat in the ring.

    I understand that Anderson talks the talk of cultural conservatism, and has thereby gained a sympathetic audience. But on some of those issues–the Second Amendment, for example–his positions as a county rep. will mean precisely nothing for local gun owners.

    Others–the crony capitalism, the active support for abominable, Obama-style “green energy” mandates and, last but not least, his history of campaign finance scams–should be of profound concern to conservatives, should they not?

    These are not, or at least once were not, “core GOP tenets.”

  36. “take the painful rewording of many websites for Republicans…“support of the family” and that of “family health”

    If a candidate ever lets me write the copy for their website, this is what it will say (about ‘support for the family’)

    Self-reliant, procreating families which raise well-adjusted and educated adults are the greatest line of defense against a tyrannical State. When Mom and Dad accept the responsibilities of providing for, educating, and raising children, to be self reliant, procreating parents, Liberty expands and the propensity for Tyranny shrinks.

    (insert name of candidate here) will support any legislation which gets the government out of the way of the essential responsibilities parents accept. Government should not subsidize families nor penalize them.

    (insert name of candidate here) believes that a father and a mother, procreating after marriage, offers the best opportunity to raise well-adjusted, self-reliant adults. (insert name of candidate here) also recognizes that free people will choose to form families outside of that construct. So be it, as long as those other families structures don’t seek subsidies from government.

    (insert name of candidate here) respects self-reliant families so much that he/she wants to stay out of their business and let civil society determine how those families should be treated among one another.

  37. Brian- I like it! I like the “hands off” approach for sure…sadly, what does one do with an attack agenda of some progressive pac or lobbying effort (recently demonstrated by the increasingly bold Gaystapo in Illinois) with “hands off”…political jujitsu and mirroing your opponent’s parries only works so far when cornered; what do faith-following families do when transgender policies for public HS bathrooms are enacted (as in Houston); or further exploration of non-reproductive homosexual sex acts are dispicted and illustrated in graphic detail to middle schoolers all in the name of “tolerance?”

    At some point, like-minded and courageous people need to take a stand against what they see clearly as threats to their livelihoods, convictions, and property. The government has been there, and in many cases should be there, to thwart insidious encroachments to those equities (especially as they relate to religious freedoms and freedom of speech/assembly issues). 50 years ago, we didn’t need Religious feedom re-affirmations or Defense of Marriage affirmations- Now, as very small, yet virulent and strident agitators advance alien and in some cases depraved agendas in the name of “tolerance”, it will (and should) be met by those that see it as detrimental and debilitating to a moral and healthy society, and with the backing and authority of the governement if necessary (Selma, Brown vs. BoE are cases of this)

    The GOP used to be that vehicle where likeminded, morally aligned members with an 80% Venn of ideas and perspectives could collectively voice opposition and advance conservative/Republican alternatives…

    Not anymore. For many, Jacob and Anderson are different faces on the same increasingly worthless coin. I agree with the previous commenter that there is a general malaise by both Dems and Repubs to their respective parties. I contend, and know scores that agree, the leadership of SDGOP has only exacerbated that exodus with duplicitous, hypocritical, and ostensive pay-to-play politics and catering to the fat-cat donors and the slick consultant class only too eager to suckle at the trough of the members’ donations.

    Of the 85K that have left under the current reign, not everyone of them left because they thought the GOP was too conservative or too progressive. Many left because they just don’t see the point when a small cabal runs the show, gets the insider deals, continue to use unethical and in some case perhaps illegal means to secure power, agendas, and support for their “folks.” That is what makes this article and the premise of the presenter so ludicrous.

  38. “Enact an executive order moving election day to tax day.”

    Too funny-I was just discussing that exact proposal yesterday with some closely aligned political friends (after we all finished our filings)….I would vote for the guy/gal that proposed that!

  39. The aligning voting with Tax Day is a good idea, but not a great idea. For it turns out that about 40% of the tax filers make an immediate PROFIT on their federal return, thanks to tax credits (primarily EITC). Hence for them Tax Day is a reminder how GREAT a day it is — taking money from the chumps who make enough to actually PAY taxes.

    BTW, the CA income tax works much the same way, though not quite as high a percent make a profit.

  40. “Enact an executive order moving election day to tax day.” “I would vote for the guy/gal that proposed that!”

    Sure I’ll take your vote. What should I run for?

    Put businessman/stand-up comic under my name on the ballot. I could totally get the cynics to vote.

    Just don’t call me a guy/gal.

  41. Post
    Author
  42. I have no interest in running for office. But I’d enjoy a candidate who has a genuine sense of humor.

  43. Founding Father well said. Most people leave the party because they invest time, giving support and monies to a candidate that they think will make a difference.

    These Candidates are elected and their promises are lost by following the direction of party leadership or the platform. In which, in many cases are already corrupt. Republicans and Democrats are both at fault. When the general public trust is lost and members leave; parties loses equilibrium and harmony, becoming more polarize in their platforms by the remaining members. Causing further loses in their memberships.

    This debate that the other party has no chance in winning in a strong district of the other party is just BS.

    In San Diego County Elections explain the following:

    2014 51% of the Voters voted for Jerry Brown. 2010 on 43% voted for Jerry Brown. Each of you rate Jerry Brown performance and policies since 2010. Would your rating give Jerry a 8% point higher in 2014? I think not.

    2014 Kamala Harris achieve 48.445% of the vote as compare 38.59% in 2010. Rate Harris in her performance since 2010, her rating would not justified an increase of 10%.

    2010 Poway Unified School District three Republicans board members were re-elected with strong majorities. 2014 only one Republican challenger was elected. After six months, I ask all to rate the one Republican on keeping his campaign promises. It would not be pretty. The Poway Unified School District is promoted as a Republican stronghold. Why did two unknown Democrats get elected over two Republican challengers?

    United States really needs to have a strong third party to bring equilibrium in the political process.

    Most importantly we, all of us need to stand up and keep these politicians accountable everyday to their promises, the party leadership be dammed.

Leave a Reply

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