Let’s Unite and Win Back the 52nd District

Carl DeMaio Undesignated 37 Comments

Share

Last night I called both Kirk Jorgensen and Fred Simon to congratulate them on running their campaigns and offering solutions to our country’s pressing problems.

Now it is time for us to unite. Ronald Reagan said it best: If you and I disagree on 15% of things, you are not my 15% enemy, you are my 85% friend.

Republicans agree that our country must return to a respect of the Constitution. We believe government is taking too much of our hard-earned money and has wasted our money on bureaucracies that don’t deliver results.

Republicans want to restore the American Dream and get quality jobs created by encouraging investment, cutting red tape, and giving our workers the skills they need to compete in a 21st century economy.

It’s time to unite. There’s just too much is at stake.

-Carl

Share

Comments 37

  1. 1 in 4 voters voted for someone other than the two candidates who advanced. Those voters are presumably Republican voters.

    Let me equate this race to the Governor’s race to offer some advice. More people voted for other Republicans than voted for the Republican who advanced ( i was one of the Republicans who did not vote for the Republican Gubernatorial nominee). Maybe this will help:

    1- I feel that CRP leadership exerted undue influence on this election. That might not be true but that’s how I feel today.

    2- I feel the CRP leadership sought an “anyone but a conservative strategy” in the Governor’s race. As a conservative, that makes me think like the CRP really doesn’t value me or my views.

    3- I’ve been a Republican for thirty years. As a conservative Republican, I don’t always expect to get my way but I’d like a nod to my values or meaningful dialogue, about issues which matter to me, from my party’s nominee.

    4- I’m outspoken, engaged, and influential. I have an email list and a sphere of influence. Whether I vote for you or not, I can be an asset or liability to your campaign in November. I’d prefer to be an asset.

    5- It’s far too early to be calling for unity. Mitt Romney didn’t win me over until the August convention in 2012. I can be persuaded but honey is going to work better than vinegar,

    6- I have to know that you won’t actively work against the issues which matter to me. Jerry Brown is going to do that already. If you appear to have similar views to him on your website but would support policy which is more aligned with me than him, help me to understand those nuances. Be prepared to explain those nuances a few times– help me to understand that I won’t be voting for another Jerry Brown.

    Mr. Kashkari, I”m all ears but the ball is in your court. If any other candidates can learn from this advice, then I”m pleased.

  2. back to Carl DeMaio

    I was one of the group who gave Kirk Jorgensen his 17% of the vote. I believe right now that Kirk would represent America better than Carl would. Why ?

    Carl states that his most important goals are pension and financial compensation reform in Congress. When will that ever happen without a change of Congressmen?
    .
    Carl mentioned “Republicans agree that our country must return to a respect of the Constitution.” I am sure that the Democrat and Republican national leadership ‘respect’ the constitution. BUT it appears they have no intention of adhering to it. (observing actions by Boehner, McConnell, Reid)

    If they did – then they would talk about it. (re: Pres Bush -1992-Agenda 21-aka ICLEI aka-global governance). We are facing a fundamental transformation (as promised by our Pres Obama).

    Kirk Jorgensen talked about the dangers facing our country today and that we need to restore the constitution and not just give it lip service or ‘respect’.

    advice to Carl – change your focus – represent America and stop promoting who you are but what you can do to restore our constitution and sovereignty and team up with the likes of Ted Cruz. Mike Lee and Jason Chaffetz, or not.

    Ronald Reagan said it best….
    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not carried on thru the bloodstream but must be fought for and protected and handed down to our children for them to do the same, or one day in our sunset years, w will be telling our children and our children’s children what life was once like in the United States where men were free”.
    2014 – the year we restore our constitutional republic and sovereignty – or the year we let it go.

  3. “When will that ever happen without a change of Congressmen?”

    We agree, Lee. Peters needs to be retired..

    “represent America and stop promoting who you are but what you can do to restore our constitution and sovereignty and team up with the likes of Ted Cruz. Mike Lee and Jason Chaffetz, or not”

    I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised, Lee. McClintock endorsed Carl and Carl has signaled that he aligns himself with Justin Amash. These two are far cries from the Boehner/Cantor crowd

  4. Unfortunately, only 20% of the people of San Diego County voted, be they Republican or Democrat. There is an old saying “Use it or Lose It.” I have no horse in this race, but this was a pathetic showing for both Democrats and Republicans.

  5. Remember, that’s not twenty percent of the people, it’s of the voters. Scarier.

  6. thank you Brian for your astute answer. but not convinced.
    But I want to be
    I want to say that I voted for Carl – but he needs to convince me and others that he is focusing in the right direction.
    right now –
    …”DeMaio also calls himself a “New Generation Republican” who wants the GOP to focus on fiscal, not social, conservatism…”

    **are we being asked to forget the fact that Obama is going full speed with his promise to fundamentally transform America ? with no one to stop him? apparently not the GOP.

    Won’t Carl have to align himself with this GOP ? .

    **are we being asked to forget that one of Carl’s top aides won an opportunity to meet with Obama and took it because he said it would be an honor to meet him. (utsandiego)
    What?
    A honor to meet a president who clearly does not like this country and is doing an awesome job at the fundamental transformation, as he had promised all of us?
    That comment, turned me off right there as well as others, I am sure.
    If Carl wants to win the hearts and minds of Americans in San Diego, he needs to let us all know what this ‘New Republican Generation’ Agenda means for America.
    lay it all on the line.

  7. Even worse. It was 20% of registered voters and not all eligible voters even bother to register.

  8. “Even worse. It was 20% of registered voters and not all eligible voters even bother to register.”

    It’s like winning the big game and when you look up you realize the stands are empty.

  9. I do not think this is what the founding fathers had envisioned.

    85%+ of the Congressional seats gerrymandered into safe districts with career politicians double/triple dipping pensions while running the national debt to 17T on its way to 25T in the next 10 years.

  10. JOHN THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD ENVISIONED. IT IS HERE, AND ONE HAS TO BLIND AND HEDONISTTIC NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT.

    WE ARE IN MORAL BANKRUPTCY. WE ARE COMPLETELY HEDONISTIC AND OWNED, LOCK STOCK AND BARRELL. POLITICAL CONTESTS ARE SIMPLY DOG AND PONY SHOWS. HOWEVER THE AUDIENCE IS NOT COMMING ANY LONGER.

    I KNEW JOHN CURTIN WHEN HE WAS GERRYMANDERING IN ORANGE COUNTY WHEN HE WAS SERVING A 90 DAY COMMIT IN THE WFC. WFC WHERE C .ARNOLT SMITH DID HIS CUSTODY.

    IF WE WANT TO AVOID WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS KNEW WHAT WAS COMMING, WE MUST GET THE SHAFTEES STIMULATED. HOWEVER UNLIKE THE FOUNDERS OF THE USA, WE ARE NOT WILLING TO GIVE UP OUR MATERIAL GOODS LET ALONE OUR LIVES.

    CORPORATOCRY,HEDGEMONY, AND THE CALIPHATE have kicked our Freedom Loving Asses to Hell.

  11. Mike,

    I could not find a direct reference in the Federalist Paper to this topic, but here is a synopsis, not sure where you get your thoughts from.

    When the Founcding Fathers deliberated over the blueprints for this great nation, they made no secret of the fact that, overwhelmingly, they believed anyone given power in government would eventually be corrupted by it.

    “Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” – James Madison

    “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with the power to endanger the public liberty.” – John Adams

    “The people must remain ever vigilant against tyrants masquerading as public servants.” – George Washington

    With these views in mind, they established a system of checks and balances to limit the power of each branch of government. While term limits were often discussed, they were not written into the Constitution. Still, the Founding Fathers made their viewpoints clear in debates, speeches and writings.

  12. Further

    They could not have foreseen the modern political climate in which career politicians are standard. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the notion of a person spending decades away from home to serve in government was unrealistic. A representative would have earned only a “modest” salary for serving his country; unlike today, a position in Congress was not a means to wealth.

    The Founding Fathers imagined a Congress of citizen legislators. James Madison described the ideal representative as one “called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature and continued in appointment for a short period of office.”

    George Mason stated further, “Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents, as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens.”

  13. John,

    “(The Founding Fathers) could not have foreseen the modern political climate in which career politicians are standard.”

    You are absolutely correct and it would be wise for those who profess to be strict Constitutionalists to remember that there are many things that The Founding Fathers could not have foreseen.

  14. I’m a rather strict constitutionalist and believe the Framers (which are is a subset of the Founding Fathers) knew the times would change, which is why they put a provision in the Constitution to change it.

  15. “it would be wise for those who profess to be strict Constitutionalists to remember that there are many things that The Founding Fathers could not have foreseen.”

    “which is why they put a provision in the Constitution to change it”

    HQ, that is really my objection to most of the “change” progressives (in both parties) have pushed—they do it illegally.

  16. Trying to be pithy and smart in a comment, but using “are” when it should be “is” just hurts me though, HQ. Cuts deep.

  17. Michael,

    Not as bad as confusing “framers” with “founding fathers.” You won this one no matter how you look at it.

  18. Brian,

    If I understand your point, we are probably in agreement. I am a much bigger supporter of change happening through the legislative, rather than the executive or judicial, branches.

    That being said, I assume that you didn’t agree with Citizen’s United decision since nowhere in the Constitution, are corporations or unions given rights nor is freedom to spend money equated with freedom of speech.

  19. HQ, how many pro-Leland Yee commercials would it have taken for you to vote for him for Secretary of State of California last week?

    Under no circumstances would you have voted for Yee due to the allegations against him and the evidence the FBI has. Pro-Yee groups could have spent tens of millions of dollars on commercials and billboards. It would not have changed your mind.

    That is because you are engaged in the process and educated on the issues.

    Few would support a law that didn’t ban guns, but simply limits you to spending only $50 on a gun. The result would be a gun ban which is unconstitutional. Is that an exact comparison? No. They never are, but the concept is the same and the point is made.

    I understand the gripe about the Citizens United decisions. There is a problem in the political system and some would like to help fix the problem by treating a symptom: limiting money.

    But the reality is that no matter how you dice it, people have the right to weigh in on politics without government interference.

    Even if they are people who have chosen to act as a group by incorporating.

    Even if they are using money to pay for their message to be broadcast.

    Acknowledging that reality and thereby stopping treatment of the symptom doesn’t get rid of the problem. The real problem is an uneducated and unelected electorate.

    Trying to fix symptoms because the cure is too hard is plagued with unintended consequences; usually effecting those who are doing what they are supposed to and usually by limiting their right to do it.

    The problem is an uneducated, unengaged electorate. I care about my faith in people and their intellect to be against the Citizens United decision and it wouldn’t be fair to give up on people by simply limiting their ability to communicate their ideas.

  20. “nowhere in the Constitution, are corporations or unions given rights nor is freedom to spend money equated with freedom of speech”

    The Constitution was written to constrain government, not people, associations, etc.

    Can you imagine of they tried to target that “evil” Thomas Paine for publishing Common Sense anonymously. Robert Bell for publishing a half million copies and the Connecticut Courant for publishing it, in its entirety, free?

    Moreover, I can’t believe Paine used his royalties to finance those “domestic terrorists”, led by Washington.

    There is a reason the First Amendment was written the way it was. Stated simply, it means HANDS OFF

  21. Brian and Michael,

    I believe you both missed my point. I was not voicing an opinion on whether corporations are people or whether it is wise to have limitations on campaign financing. All I was saying was that no where in the Constitution are corporations given any rights nor is there any mention that the right of free speech is to be equated with the right to spend money.

    Because it is not specifically written in the Constitution, the decisions as to whether corporations have the same rights as people and to whether their should be limits on campaign financing should be left up to the legislative branch, not the Supreme Court.

  22. Brian and Michael,

    What do you think about the teacher tenure decision? Not teacher tenure, per se but the court decision that ruled it unconstitutional. Is teacher tenure really a violation of the Constitution or should this be a matter left to the legislative branch?

  23. Yes, but like I stated above, the First Amendment is clear and if the result of laws (like spending money) is an infringement on the rights codified in the First Amendment, then it is unconstitutional.

    A counter question would be where is it written in the Constitution that congress has the power to legislate against spending money on your political beliefs?

    I don’t know enough about the tenure decision to comment. But will read up on it.

  24. I don’t know much about the California constitution so I can’t comment about the teacher tenure. What I DO know is that the legislative branch is forbidden from making laws which infringe upon or abridge free speech.

    Unions (and any other association, like a corporation) should absolutely be allowed to collect voluntary donations and support candidates without restriction from the government

  25. Money is not speech and neither corporations nor unions are simply a gathering of people exercising their rights.

    By the way, the legislature makes laws “which infringe upon or abridge free speech” all the time. Speech which may incite a riot, electioneering within 100 feet of a polling booth and most recently, speech which is considered bullying.

    It seems to me that those who say they are strict constitutionalists only mean it when the literal meaning of the Constitution suits their purpose.

  26. “Money is not speech ”

    Money isn’t food either; it’s a tool.

    Telling people how to spend their money is the mark of a true statist. The statist can’t legally steal it so he controls how free people can spend it

  27. Brian,

    Just to be clear: I am not advocating for campaign financing limits. In fact, I agree with you and Michael that we shouldn’t have any. However, that is a decision for the lawmakers, not the courts.

  28. “However, that is a decision for the lawmakers, not the courts.”

    …who are bound by strict guidelines. When they violate those guidelines, the courts are duty bound to intervene.

    Ultimately, we agree so THAT’s good, right? 😉

  29. “Ultimately, we agree so THAT’s good, right?”

    If the ends justify the means, I guess you are right.

    Let’s take another example, this time where we probably disagree: Roe vs. Wade.

    I am happy with the result, but I still have not been able to find a right to privacy anywhere in the Constitution. Likewise, I haven’t been able to find a right to unlimited spending.

  30. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

    “The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.”

    “The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists.”

  31. “By the way, the legislature makes laws “which infringe upon or abridge free speech” all the time.”

    Perhaps I should have said “unreasonably burden” or “ban” rather than infringe, HQ.

    Regarding Roe vs. Wade, I would guess that the 9th Amendment applies.

  32. Michael,

    If you are right about the 9th Amendment, then anything can be considered a right, even the right to a higher wage.

  33. Well, I probably should have written “I would guess supporters of the R vs. V decision would point to the 9th.”

    I wonder if you’d be surprised at just how broad I believe the term “right” is. But what is a right and what is not a right is likely not where you and I disagree.
    Using your example…does everyone have a right to a “higher wage”? If everyone does have a right to a higher wage, is it the responsibility of the government to provide that right? Or just protect it?
    I believe you and I agree that we have the right to keep and to bear arms, but neither of us believe that the government should issue everyone a firearm and a holster.
    But…if I go out and buy one or make one or trade for one…the government cannot take it because it is my right.

  34. Michael,

    We are in complete agreement and I don’t believe anyone has a “right” to a higher wage. I was just continuing my point about strict interpretation of the Constitution and that there is no specific right to privacy.

    As for increasing the minimum wage, I believe it is good social and ecomomic policy and I believe the legislative branch would be wise to make a law enacting that increase.

Leave a Reply

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