New local GOP leadership team selected

Press Releases / Media Advisories Press Releases / Media Advisories 33 Comments


Press Release

San Diego Republicans Elect Leadership Team For 2015-2016
Adopt Rule to oppose any new taxes, fees, or bonds which require 55% to pass

SAN DIEGO – Members of the Republican Party of San Diego County elected their leadership team for the 2015-2016 cycle last night, January 12, at their organizational meeting held at the Kona Kai Resort on Shelter Island.

Tony Krvaric was elected Chairman for a fifth consecutive term. Mr. Krvaric is a small business owner in the financial services field and lives in Scripps Ranch with his wife and four children. Mr. Krvaric is an immigrant from Sweden and a naturalized citizen since 2003.

Ron Nehring was re-elected as Vice Chairman. Mr. Nehring previously served as California Republican Party Chairman and Chairman of the Republican Party of San Diego County, and was the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor of California in 2014. Mr. Nehring is a political commentator, consultant, and lecturer.

Barrett Tetlow was elected 2nd Vice Chair, succeeding Sherry Hodges. Mr. Tetlow previously served as the Executive Director of the Republican Party of San Diego County and is currently the Chief of Staff to San Diego Councilman Scott Sherman.

Jeannie Foulkrod was elected 2nd Vice Chair, succeeding Derrick Roach. Ms. Foulkrod is a financial analyst for a national company with offices in San Diego.

Gary Felien was re-elected for another term as Treasurer. Mr. Felien is an accountant by trade and served as Councilman in Oceanside from 2010 until 2014.

All officers were unanimously elected. At the meeting the organization also adopted its bylaws, a strategic plan, and a rule to oppose all local tax or fee increases or extensions, and any local bonds that require only 55% to pass.

Chairman Krvaric issued the following statement:

“Local Republicans are united and excited about the 2015-2016 election cycle. With over 200 offices up for election throughout the county the work of winning those starts now. There is no ‘off year’ as far as we are concerned and we look forward to making the case for our candidates to all residents of San Diego County.”



Comments 33

  1. That was a great decision to adopt the no new taxes pledge. RPSDC just announced its opposition to a taxpayer-funded stadium. That’s why I seconded the motion

  2. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results . . .

    For the first time, Decline to State voter registrations combined with “other” party registrations now exceeds the total of Republican registrations in San Diego, California. We already knew this statewide, but these are the newly posted county registrations as of yesterday . . .

    Democrat 540,361
    Republican 508,756
    DTS 428,167
    Other Parties 84,957
    DTS + Other 513,124

    I think the message should be clear. The Republican Party of San Diego County needed a change in leadership. I guess they just didn’t get the memo – or refused to read it. This will only get worse. It should be a wake-up call to the members of the Central Committee, but I’m not sure they’re ready to smell the coffee yet.

  3. Regrettably, , ..that isn’t coffee we smell…

    Its like the Soviet Politburo…just move the apparatchiks from chair to chair and call it “change.”

    “Change” you can believe in….

    The stadium announcement is a plus…but the SDGOP may just ignore that like they have other former GOP tenets in the name of political “pragmatism.”..their credibility is crippled after abandoning Life and Marriage. Stay tuned for what will be the next tenet abandoned.

  4. First FF, thanks for the comment from the misguided lady on another post. I didn’t even know where to begin with her.

    I’m a glass half-full guy so I’m naturally going to see the positive in the “no new taxes” default position. RPSDC did not SPECIFICALLY vote to oppose a taxpayer-funded stadium but, for all practical purposes, we did.

    That could be unwound if two things happen:

    1- ten CentCom members petition the full committee to vote FOR the taxpayer-funded stadium
    2- 2/3 of the full committee vote FOR a taxpayer funded stadium

    Could that happen? Absolutely. What would be the political ramifications if we did? Mayhem.

    I seconded that motion because I thought it was the best thing the Chairman proposed in six years. It gives him proper cover with the donor class and brands us properly.

    I also voted for every single officer nominated.

  5. “Stay tuned for what will be the next tenet abandoned.”

    The local GOP will not and does not enforce the platform. This isn’t a criticism. This isn’t a secret. It is a reality.

    Once this fact is realized, your frustration melts and your activities have a chance of becoming useful and effective.

    Over and over and over, this has been said, Frank. Over and over. “They do not enforce the platform.”
    In French: “Ils ne appliquent pas la plate-forme”
    In Spanish: “Ellos no hacen cumplir la plataforma”
    In German: “Sie haben nicht die Plattform durchzusetzen”

    They don’t enforce it with a fox. They won’t enforce it eating lox. They won’t enforce it in a house. They won’t enforce it when you grouse.

    Not sure how many more ways I can put this, Frank.

    What do they do? They get Republicans elected. Big government Republicans, small government Republicans. Pro civil liberty Republicans. Anti civil liberty Republicans.
    If you want it to be your Republican, then work hard to make your Republican the Republican that they’ve decided to try to elect.
    Oh, and also start to understand that sometimes you don’t get what you want. Even if you point to the sky and yell about how it is falling or throw a big tantrum or complain about being a victim and vote for Democrats.

  6. But they do endorse (enforce) candidates that do or do not.

    I spoke with those that witnessed TK’s elation when Carl was endorsed…”whew” was the quote, followed by a sigh of relief……why would that be, Michael? I mean if the party is only there to facilitate as you claim…why the “relief?”

    News flash- Because its bullshit…We all know why…especially the consultants and those insider Star Chamber Types Carl was going to carry the quid-pro-quo deals for.

    No one believes the party leadership does not enforce…cajole…influence…mandate…or manipulate endorsements…..
    Let me say it again…NO….ONE…BELIEVES…THAT! …How do I know that….BECAUSE 80,000 PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST THE RPSDC WITH THEIR FEET OVER THE LAST 6 YEARS..The good news is, just enough people were not convinced of it and they didn’t elect DeMaio.

    That is reality…and one you and others clearly do not like and will not accept. “Why” is a much more interesting question….

    Sadly, it doesn’t really matter; Had KJ won (or at least blocked the endorsement) the SDGOP would have just found away around the poor bastard in NC that recently had his endorsement pulled after having it given/promised/announced, only to have the RPSDC renege on its endorsement of him once a more well funded option emerged…After his personal sacrifice, hard work, personal financing, and stress and strain on his personal and professional life…UN-FU&%ING BELIEVABLE.

    I guess TK, et al could then offer the consultants more money from a better funded candidate, now couldn’t they?…but you keep claiming they have no impact…

    The Sgt Schultz routine, Michael is wearing a little thin..”I know nuzing…nuzing…”..How is it I and 1000s other DO know, and you either claim you do not, or really dont know..what is the greater indictment; A party too incompetent to know whats really going on with its own processes, or a party that precisely knows what is going on and let’s it happen, or directs it anyways…?

    I’m quite confident I’m not the only interested observer.

  7. FF and Michael,

    It seems that both of you are intentionally overlooking uncomfortable facts. It is unarguably true that the candidates that can raise the most money are the candidates most likely to gain the party’s endorsement. And FF is correct that one reason for that is that many of those making the endorsement have a conflict of interest and personally benefit financially when the endorsed candidate has more money to spend on consultants. However, what FF ignores is that the candidate that can raise the most money also has the best chance of winning.

    A successful candidate needs many skills. The ability to raise lots of money is one of the most important.

  8. HQ,

    I absolutely understand the calculus of money and electability.

    But its the old “chicken or egg” conundrum isn’t it…

    Is it the candidate displays attributes that make him/her electable, therefore they are a worthwhile political investment? Or, are they attractive because they have/gather/attract funding because of other reasons outside of their character/political leanings/ or general affability?

    For the SDGOP, is the clearly the latter. I think the last 52CD race was a prime example of that. The political junk yard is strewn with the most unimpressive people and candidates; yet they were fueled by some group or other of interested/influential donors that shoved them onto the political scene despite their general unattractiveness or antithetical political leanings to key sectors of the electorate. Many of the so-called ‘RINO” candidates fit this mold..we just need to see Thad Cochrane or the machinations of the Arizona GOP and the vilification/eradication campaign launched by McCain and his E-GOP cronies to rid Arizona of those confounded “Tea Party” ingrates.

    Oh..and didn’t get that memo? Now that is awkward. I’m sure that wasn’t on the agenda minutes at the last “love in” GOP meeting, was it..?

  9. So FF you rail against the party but can you do anything about it? Are your 80,000 gone for good or will they show up to change the GOP here? I see you mention them but they didn’t materialize for KJ. If they’re gone and don’t participate in the process should we really chase them or fight for those that will vote?

  10. I, as usual, don’t know what FF is trying to say. All I am saying is that the local San Diego Party does not enforce the platform. That is by design.
    Continuing to be mad that a group doesn’t do something that they don’t do and are designed to do will result in frustration.

    Regarding the DeMaio endorsement, I was in the room. Nobody said “whew” because nobody was surprised. Everyone except for Kirk’s team knew what the vote count would look like going in. Which speaks to his experience and Kirk’s lack of experience. They voted for Carl because he was known, trusted, and financed. Because, again, the local Republican Party doesn’t enforce the platform. Which is my point.

  11. FF,

    You are certainly correct that a party endorsement would make it easier to raise money. However, there is a reason that the initial reporting periods (before any endorsement) are so important. Any candidate, but especially a relative unknown who decides to try for Federal office in his first foray into electoral politics, needs to be able to raise money apart from the Party in order to be considered credible.

  12. With regards to the so-called “initial reporting period.” that becomes a complete crock when the party intentionally does its endorsement three months before the end of candidate filing, don’t you think? How quickly they forget when it’s convenient. And we all know DeMaio only got the endorsement by ONE VOTE! Trusted? Nah. Bought and paid for by a backroom deal with Doug Manchester. We all know this. The endorsement was pre-determined. The only real surprise is that it was only by one vote. I’m just glad the voters were smarter than that.

  13. Karen,

    I am not a DeMaio supporter, far from it. For reasons very different from yours, I believe his election to any office would be disastrous. However, as a long time political observer and as someone who didn’t have a dog in your intramural fight, I can tell you that DeMaio had a much better chance of defeating Congressman Peters than either Simon or Jorgensen had.

  14. Hypocrisy questioned,

    At the moment, I’m not speaking about the endorsement per se as much as I am about the reprehensible and corrupt way it was effected. I find that completely outrageous and disgusting. Nonsense like that has to end. These endorsements should NEVER be for sale to the highest bidder under any circumstances. It stopped the better candidate, Kirk Jorgensen, from winning against Scott Peters, which he would have done with the Party’s endorsement and support, and stuck us with Peters for the next two years. I hope they’ve learned their lesson and don’t pull a stupid stunt like that again in 2016.

    I also just learned of the attempt – thank God unsuccessfully – to manipulate endorsements for incumbent candidates as early as THIS JUNE! Are you kidding me? This was a blatant attempt to remove the possibility of other Republican candidates legitimately challenging the incumbents and to take away the voters’ and even the Central Committee’s ability to seriously consider candidates who may not be well known now.

    Situations like this are responsible for people leaving the Party and the rise in DTS voter registrations. Apparently that hasn’t sunk in yet, but it will. We should all be fed up with this nonsense and be willing to speak out and stop it.

  15. We don’t do this often, in fact we very much lean against ever doing it except in the case of unsubstantiated allegations:

    The comment above named an individual in the alleged attempt to manipulate endorsements — that has been edited by us to not include the name. The allegation itself is unsubstantiated and we have no way of proving or disproving it, so the use of a specific name in the allegation is not appropriate.

    If the commenter or others disagree with our best judgement on this, that would indicate a lack of understanding of potential libel, or a lack of understanding of the difference between opinion and fact.

    Removing the name was a better decision than banning the comment in its entirety. The substance remains the same.

    Thanks for your understanding.

  16. Karen,

    You’re dead wrong to suggest that the endorsement in CD52 was rigged (but you already know that). A few of us outlined how XCOM (and the Chair specifically) went out of their way to suspend rules IN FAVOR OF Simon and Jorgensen (so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety).

    I understand that you disagreed with the endorsement but your ire should be directed at the 2/3 of the Committee members who voted for DeMaio. I was one of them.

    But you know that. You sound crazier and crazier when you levy accusations of corruption after I, Eric Andersen, and Michael Schwartz have told you otherwise…time and time again.

    …unless you think we’re liars. Is that what you think?

  17. TA, “that would indicate a lack of understanding of potential libel, or the difference between opinion and fact.”

    It could also indicate sour grapes.

    Brian, gay people lie. Therefore, those who support them lie. Clearly, 2/3 of the committee are thus liars and lied to buy into a corrupt manipulation of the system to support a liar.


  18. HQ,

    “Any candidate, but especially a relative unknown who decides to try for Federal office in his first foray into electoral politics, needs to be able to raise money apart from the Party in order to be considered credible.”

    In principle, I agree…yet Tom Cotton (AR), Allen West (FL), Chip Cravvack (MN) all were “relative” unknowns when they also ran for congress, were all in the same boat as Jorgensen, and they each rose beyond the conventional lock-step consultant class tribble and won.

    I am sure you are enjoying the circlular firing squad watching the conservatives and the establishment go at it in the GOP…no doubt it is a divided lot…but no one disputes the concerted, direected and deliberate machinations of the rigid, hard line, old school establishment types have made it painstakingly clear their position regrading conservative influence and perceived encroachment on their political rice bowls. It was well manifested in the 52CD. One may disagree with a KJ approach and position; one may disagree with the opposition of conservatives when they either discover or perceive abnormal and unprecedented resistance to their concerns within the GOP and the processes for which candidates are endorsed, where hithertofore antithetical positions within the GOP are now touted as “evolved” precisely for political correctness or some skewed idea of political pragmatism. (e.g. shifting left in the hope of “opening” the tent, and they wonder why they didn’t see the exit sign in the back…80K and climbing)

    We will continue to see quibbling on the issues, but the fact that the E-GOP is systematically identifying, marginalizing, and attempting to eradicate conservatives within its ranks; McCain in AZ; using sites like this; SRN and the false moniker of “conservative” while their commnetators support a Neil Kashkari or Carl DeMaio is proof positive the conservatives have to go, are at least be placated and quieted like some weird uncle under the stairs…

    …but I’m sure the pop corn tastes a little better from you vantage point.. 😉

  19. FF,

    Actually I am more interested in the success of the United States than I am in the success of the Democratic Party so my enjoyment watching our local Republican Party’s dysfunction (by the way, the Democrats aren’t much better) is not as sweet as you may think.

    As for the examples you gave:

    Tom Cotton won a statewide race in a very conservative state and was previously elected to Congress in a race that had no incumbent.

    West and Cravaak’s victories were certainly more analogous to what could have been Jorgensen’s path since they both beat an incumbent Democrat. On the other hand, both only lasted one term after being beaten by a different Democrat in their first re-election try.

  20. I concede West and Cravvack didn’t maintain their victories..but they achieved for Cotton…wasn’t Bill Clinton from Arkansas?? 🙂

    My point is..if there is a will, there is a way..yes the candidate has to have some “skills” and affability. But in a congress that has repulsive creatures like Henry Waxman Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz, or idiots like Shelia Jackson Lee and Barbara Boxer, or corrupt people like Charile Rangel, or even long-in-the-tooth establishment types like Thad Cochrane and McCain, then a Jorgensen, West, or Cravvack are not only possible, but winnable.

    The RPSDC-enablers contradicts ithemselves when it rails on why KJ was not a viable candidate/newcomer/novice/ect when they turned around 4 months later and endorsed Larry Wilske; a supremely competent, capable, affable, morally and ethically minded Republican with no political experience either. In fact, Wilske’s odds in his district were even more challenging than would be KJ in the 52CD. Yet, the way the GOP treated Jorgensen vs. Wilske was for the simple fact Wilske was not challenging Demaio (or the establishments “rice bowl”).

    Despite the meme from many on this site; DeMaio was tainted long before he decided to campaign against his previous self-proclaimed “minimalizing” position on his life style along with his position on the euphamistic “reproductive rights”…he has had ethical challenges that have been documented thoroughly on this site, as well as other political observers in SD. But the RPSDC was boresighted on his candidacy..and while some will continue the narrative that the process is not corrupt, many understand that their is undue influence, procedual irregularities and misteps, and an inordinate amount of those in the system that are benefitted in ways where their voice and input sways the endorsments. That has been documented, verified, and is not in dispute.

    The RPSDC will continue to shift its political perspective leftward in a feeble attempt to placate “millenials” and “independents” with more whacky, un-Republican type candidates that will not espouse or exemplify Republican tenets as we have historically and fundamentally known them…

    Prediction- DeMaio will endorse a gay military member for the 52CD in 2016′ ..and he/she will get the endorsement from the RPSDC. They will be “strong” on National Defense, gun rights, border security, fiscally sound and all free-martkety ..all the things the libertines like…but will not be for either the sanctity of Life or Marriage.

  21. “Prediction- DeMaio will endorse a gay military member for the 52CD in 2016′ ..and he/she will get the endorsement from the RPSDC. They will be “strong” on National Defense, gun rights, border security, fiscally sound and all free-martkety ..all the things the libertines like…but will not be for either the sanctity of Life or Marriage.”

    I understand your concern about the sanctity of marriage (we disagree, but I won’t begrudge you your point of view), but why does being gay matter?

  22. Duncan Hunter, Brian Jones, Joel Anderson, Steve Vaus, Marie Waldron, Barbara Decker, Ken Gosselin, Bill Wells, Ed Gallo, Bill Baber, Jerry Kern, Jim Desmond, Donna Woodrum, Jim Kelly, David Chong, etc all were endorsed. All went through the same process as DeMaio and Jorgensen. All were endorsed by a vote cast by the exact same people who endorsed DeMaio.

    All are undisputed conservatives.

    Kinda completely trashes your entire conspiracy theory, huh, Frank?

    Whoa be unto Frank. The sky is falling. The Republican Party is turning “libertine” lefty and is totally corrupt except for when they endorse Duncan Hunter, Brian Jones, Joel Anderson, Steve Vaus, Marie Waldron, Barbara Decker, Ken Gosselin, Bill Wells, Ed Gallo, Bill Baber, Jerry Kern, Jim Desmond, Donna Woodrum, Jim Kelly, David Chong, etc.

    Or….maybe they endorsed Carl because they all know him, were comfortable with his track record, he was well funded where as Kirk had none of those things, and the county party doesn’t enforce the platform.

    Sorry to interrupt your party with facts, Frank.

  23. ..yes, Michael…of course…that’s why TK, Jerry, Papa Doug, Tommy, Carl, Kevin, and some of the other Hitler Youth met in secret in La Jolla to plan out the endorsment that the party doesn’t enforce…and moved the endorsement..that they don’t enforce or influnce..we agree on one thing, facts are a bitch…

    Oh..and none of those you listed were running against Carl…the only guy in the 52CD that was at the meeting to “strategize” about the endorsments you still claim aren’t enforced…

    The more you try to apply the meme that it isn’t corrupted or at least maligned, the more “company man”ish it sounds…here’s another fun fact…

    8..0..0..0..0.. lost Repubilcans…(golf clap)…well done!!

  24. HQ…it doesn’t…except that a gay candidate will support policies that advance and support opposition to the sanctity of Marriage…the larger question (one never broached with Demaio because of the cowardess shown by both the campaign and RPSDC) is AB 1266 (Trandgender Bathrooms) or sodomy instruction for k-6 children, or unisex facilities in public schools? Not all SSM supporters would support those issues, but is the opposite true?

    Again, it isn’t the fact that one is LGBT…as far as I know, Faulconer isn’t LGBT; yet I didn’t vote for Faulconer for the EXACT same reasons I didn’t vote for DeMaio..the only way I, or anyone, knows DeMaio is gay is that he told us…So who makes it an issue…in DeMaio’s case, it was him..and his slick West Hollywood/Palm Springs consultants.

  25. “Kinda trashes your conspiracy theory, now doesn’t it?”

    I’m sorry,.you were saying?

  26. Frank,

    “the endorsments you still claim aren’t enforced…”
    I never claimed this. Mostly because it makes no sense. How do you enforce an endorsement?

    “Kinda trashes your conspiracy theory, now doesn’t it?”
    This isn’t my quote, but you put quotation marks around it and said I said it.

    “none of those you listed were running against Carl…”
    Go back and read what I wrote again. What you wrote here makes it appear that you don’t understand what I wrote in any way. Especially this: “All were endorsed by a vote cast by the exact same people who endorsed DeMaio.”

  27. Funny. Only a complete egomaniac would think TA’s reason for leaving the comment up is out of praise. Very telling. Note to idiots. The comment is up to show the hypocrisy.

  28. Spin… You forgot handsome and modest.

    What are you so afraid of? Why does revealing the ineffectiveness and self serving nature of the RPSDC frighten you so much?

    I’ll take the charge of egomania over apparent cowaress any day..

  29. Show me an organization that doesn’t have a “self serving nature” and I will show you an organization that is soon to be out of business.

  30. HQ- There are ethically understood and agreed upon parameters of said organizations…and then there’s the RPSDC…

    They don’t even follow their own bylaws…

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.