New Majority Endorses Carl DeMaio

Carl DeMaio Carl DeMaio 23 Comments


DeMaio is “New Generation Republican” Who Will Bring Needed Fiscal and Economic Reforms to Washington

San Diego, CA – Today the San Diego chapter of the New Majority, one of the largest Republican PAC’s in California, announced its endorsement of Carl DeMaio for the 52nd Congressional District.

“After undergoing our candidate endorsement process, we are pleased to select and support a new generation Republican leader, Carl DeMaio,” said Kelly Burt, Chairman of the New Majority San Diego. “One of New Majority’s top priorities is to maintain the GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to ensure a balance of power in Washington D.C., and winning back this seat in support of a fiscally responsible and reform-oriented candidate is the right choice.”

“I’m honored to have the support of New Majority,” said DeMaio. “As many of the state’s top business leaders who live and work in San Diego, they share my passion to bring common sense values back to Washington. They understand the importance of making fiscal and economic issues the priority, which includes balancing the budget, holding government programs accountable, and freeing up businesses to thrive and create economic opportunities for our families. I appreciate their support.”

Carl has a long and successful history as a civic and business leader in San Diego. In 2000, he launched the Performance Institute, a non-partisan, private think tank dedicated to reforming government through the principles of performance, transparency, competition and accountability. Carl built the organization into the largest government reform think tank in the nation and the leading authority on performance-based management in government, law enforcement, non-profits and schools. In 2003, Carl founded the American Strategic Management Institute (ASMI), which provides training and education in corporate financial and performance management. In late 2007, Carl sold both of his companies to Thompson Publishing Group.

Carl’s work in San Diego as a fiscal reformer earned him national attention. While on the City Council, Carl DeMaio wrote the “Roadmap to Recovery” plan that helped turn around the City of San Diego and authored and help pass the Pension Reform Initiative that is now a national model. More than offering great ideas, Carl has got his ideas implemented by standing on principle and bringing together diverse coalitions and support from both political parties.

About the New Majority and its Members
With chapters in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, and Santa Barbara, the membership of the New Majority consists of some of the most successful business leaders from various industries across the state. The organization is focused on electing fiscally responsible Republicans to the White House, United States Congress, California State Legislature and local offices.


Comments 23

  1. I am sure this will make Kevin Faulconer and any other Republican who was thinking about challenging Peters feel all warm and fuzzy.

  2. H: You may have hit the nail on the head as far as the commenter the other day thinking DeMaio should have waited a few more months. Those “thinking about” it may get less warm and fuzzy about running, the more traction DeMaio gets, it would seem. That’s why decisive candidates — good or bad — jump in these things early (?) For discussion…

  3. I think that Carl announcing he was running for this seat has scared any other Republicans from running for it.

  4. If, in fact, all other Republicans have been scared away by DeMaio’s announcement and none enter the race, that loud cheer you hear will be coming from Peters’ campaign headquarters.

  5. Hypocrisy, let’s hope the Peters’ HQ IQ is as low as you claim. Remember, that in an “Obama effect” year, when Carl lost the mayoral race by 53%-47%, he carried the “Peters’ Congressional district (the part in the city of San Diego) by 58% (to 42% for Filner).
    In 2014 — no Obama effect. Well, perhaps a NEGATIVE effect. Carl’s gonna KILL Peters at the polls.

  6. Richard,

    Do you think Filner and Peters are viewed the same in CD 52? Be careful who you accuse of having a low IQ?

  7. Hypocrisy, Peters was a MAJOR player in the San Diego city pension debacle, while DeMaio is the man most view as providing the needed reforms in that mess.. Peters is still a reliable water carrier for the labor unions, as their strong backing of Peters readily attests.

    Bilbray made a MAJOR campaign error, not tying Peters to the city pension disaster. But even so, Peters could not have won without the Obama effect — the turnout of Democrats’ core constituency (low info voters). As it was, Scott barely squeaked out a victory with 51.2% of the vote. A recent poll (of unknown quality by the left-leaning Glover Park Group) has DeMaio favored in the upcoming race against Peters, 47% to 38%. Republican have a plurality of the registered voters.

    Seems unlikely to me that the Peters’ HQ folks are dancing in the streets over the prospect of facing DeMaio in 2014.

    BTW, I referred to the Peters HQ as having a low IQ, not you. But, it seems that perhaps I was too generous in not including you in that category.

  8. Richard,

    On the IQ point, I definitely mis-read your first line. If memory serves me correct you had a similar problem with one of my earlier posts. Anyway, thank you for not questioning my intelligence.

    It is true that Peters benefitted greatly from running in a Presidential election, but he will benefit this time in not running against an incumbent. He will further benefit from not having to run against someone considered to be a moderate. Bilbray was a moderate Republican incumbent who loved to surf and was very much the environmentalist. In short, he fit the district well, yet Peters still beat him. DeMaio does not fit the district (unless compared to Filner). He represented only a part of the district as a council member and only because he either ran unopposed or virtually unopposed. La Jolla was not part of his district and this is where Peters will win the election.

    Peters may get tied to his union supporters, but DeMaio will be tied to the biggest developers and builders. The people of CD 52 may not be big fans of unions, but they (especially those on the coast) hate developers even more.

    Time will tell which one of is right, but I guarantee you that Peters will be much more confident running against DeMaio than he would be running against Faulconer, Jones, Wyland or Garrick.

  9. Richard,

    You are very incorrect to state, “Bilbray made a MAJOR campaign error, not tying Peters to the city pension disaster.” Read this UT news article from September 2012:

    Bilbray dubbed Peters, “Father of the Pension Crisis.” During the election, TV ads in heavy rotation lamented this fact. Meanwhile Carl refused to endorse Romney, and Malin Burnham endorsed Peters.

    You all are also missing the point of the Obama effect, which is no strength at the top of the ticket. In 2014, what strength do you believe will be at the top of the ticket in California statewide races? It is shaping up to be a landslide Democrat top of the ticket with every statewide office held by an incumbent Democrat and virtually no GOP challengers.

    I suggest you re-analyze why Carl lost the Mayor’s race before prognosticating so mightily.

  10. So the party has chosen DeMaio and expects the voters to fall in line. The party believes because it’s a Republican district and Peters won because of Obama’s coat-tails. It must have been a fluke. blah blah blah

    Well I want to choose my own damn candidate and not have it chosen for me. Eric Roach, Kevin Faulconer, Mark Wyland, Martin Garrick, if your read this. Lets see what you got. Run for Congress!!!!!!

  11. All due respect, Joe, but where has the “party” chosen anyone? And, please don’t give us the blah blah blah that the party or the establishment has selected anyone, based on a Rostra post and some commenters. It appears that DeMaio is doing exactly what he is doing to try to keep others out of the race with the ultimate hope of gaining the party endorsement. That hasn’t happened yet. But, maybe it’s what a candidate should be doing to make it happen. If anyone else is doing it, someone speak up.

  12. “So the party has chosen DeMaio and expects the voters to fall in line”

    About which “party” do you speak? Is it the RNCC ? I know they are interested in winning this seat back. Is it the local, county committee (RPSDC)? I know it is REALLY interested in winning this seat, likes DeMaio but hasn’t endorsed any candidate yet. Is it local tea party groups? I have yet to see them endorse anyone either.

    “Well I want to choose my own damn candidate and not have it chosen for me.”

    Awesome. Find one (and a comment on SDRostra is not going to magically make one appear). Let me help you understand a few things, though:

    1- It’s going to take a lot of money to win this seat. Scott Peters is personally wealthy, has the backing of the DNCC, and is an incumbent. I”m sure the RNCC will be throwing seven figures into the race but the Republican candidate will have to have the ability to raise low six figures by the first reporting deadline (June 30). If there is a serious candidate out there, he is lining up donors right now.

    2- Whoever you find needs to announce…like…now. They need to be a player by June 30 (with funds raised) or nobody is going to take them seriously

    3- That person should call the NRCC, the San Diego Republican delegation, RPSDC and start setting up meetings immediately. If he/she can secure some endorsements fast, he/she can be considered a contender.

    This is one of the most important races in the country in 2014 so there will be little margin for error. I invite you Joe to: choose a candidate, help him/her announce, raise money, secure endorsements, and start campaigning.

    I started asking Carl to do this about 4 months ago. While I’m biased towards him, I’m not against a good, clean debate about conservative principles but…and don’t take this advice lightly…time is wasting. Please act quickly because, by Independence Day, those who aren’t running will be too late

  13. Anonymous Jay, DeMaio did NOT lose the mayor’s race where it (now) counts– in Peters Congressional district. You may not LIKE the fact that, in spite of the Obama effect, he beat Filner 58%-42% in that district overlap. Too bad for you.

    It doesn’t MATTER how poorly DeMaio did south of I-8. What matters is the Peters district. Why do you simply deny this, instead harping on DeMaio’s CITYWIDE loss?

    Gosh, it’s a mystery!


  14. Jay, Democrats were inspired to turn out for their Savior at the top of the 2012 ticket. Jerry Brown doesn’t causes many people to feel a tingle running up their leg.

    Low-info voters turned out for Obama, and then mindlessly voted straight Democrat ticket as dictated by Democrat Party “recommendation” distributions dispersed via mail and social media (to the credit of their well run, well financed party).

    Similar exhortations will flow to the low-info voters in 2014, but the magic ain’t there. No one doubts for a second that Jerry Brown and fellow Democrats will win all the statewide elections in a walk.

    One reason people felt compelled to turn out to vote for Obama was so he would win the national POPULAR vote, just in case there was a dispute over the Electoral College outcome. No such concern exists for the CA gubernatorial election.

    It’s funny, but people feel most compelled to vote in the very races where their vote matters the least.

  15. Brian,

    “one of the most important races in the country…” just a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think? While it may be one of the closest races in the country, whether 1 of 435 members of Congress is a first-term Republican with no seniority or a second-term Democrat with no seniority matters very little in the grand scheme of things.


    You can continue to try to equate Filner and Peters, but they are nothing alike in the minds of most CD-52 voters. The district is very moderate (the reason there is so much interest in it in the first place) and Peters fits it well. Neither DeMaio nor Filner do.

  16. Living in CA52 I’ll be happy to see Peters go. I’m an analysis junkie so I’m going to throw in potential difficulties I see in the race:

    1) The Dems have been uncharacteristically soft on newbee Peters. They gave him the plumb committees for our area and he hasn’t been forced to take votes that would tick us off. He wants to be bipartisan which is easy to say since he’s in the minority party (it’s always easy being bipartisan when you have no power). He claims he’s there to be a problem solver but hasn’t solved anything. But the Democrats want to keep this spot, its tied to some big money and they want as much of the CA coastline as they can get. Carl (or any GOP) will be fighting not against SD Dems but also National Dems.

    2) Because Carl is gay doesn’t make him a new Republican. I’m sorry but we need to be honest about it now in order to properly handle it during the race. What is new about him? The message is the same and that’s where we got hurt with minority and moderate votes. At the SD GOP meeting there was an emphasis on outreach to Latinos and other groups we lost. But I couldn’t help thinking “what are we going to say to them?” They know who we are (the GOP brand) and they haven’t bought it. A quick look at Carl’s website shows that his message will resonate with traditional GOP voters. I like it. But putting a gay face (or Latino for that matter) on the old GOP message will not bring in new votes. Voters will see through that and it will hurt future reform efforts because they’ll assume everything is carpeting and not foundation. It’s the political middle (social mod/lib but still fiscal con in CA52) he needs to capture. We need a new message that focuses on them and gets Peters off balance. It can’t be Democrat-lite, it needs to be fresh.

    3) DeMaio vs Peters could quickly slip into a mud fight over old City Council battles. That will turn off voters especially the middle. It just turns to noise too fast. That is not good for Carl or conservatives. Because Peters is the incumbent and we need to turn out our base and reach into the middle. Pushing Peters left won’t hurt as bad a Peters pushing Carl right. Sadly, that’s the story of California – the far left is seen as the lesser evil to the far right. We need to show that Peters is anti-middle.

    4) How different are the two? Peters is a Union tool, Carl is definitely not. Different parties sure. One gay, one straight (but neither have kids in school here). But both are former city councilmen, transplants, didn’t serve in the military, and millionaires. That means the fight will be an attempt to find some difference between the two and because of our sound-byte and reality-TV world it could quickly degenerate to:
    – Social Issues: Carl wants to avoid it to prevent a cut into his base, Peters will embrace it, do a whisper campaign, and try to show Carl as a hypocrite.
    – The Union/Pension thing again: The union fight will come up again but it’ll be the union full force backed by rich La Jolla. This time it won’t be caustic Filner defending these stances it’ll be La Jolla’s guy with a smile.
    We need to pick a new battlefield before being drawn on to these ones. Peters has been on the Pension battlefield for years he knows the terrain and we don’t need trench warfare there. I know Carl has one fights there but I think we need a blitzkrieg elsewhere (a bit too heavy on the metaphor, but I’m an Army guy).

    Sorry for the long post, as I said I’m an analysis junkie. In no way am I saying Carl can’t beat Peters, I’m just pointing out difficulties in the race now. I do have thoughts on how I’d approach these problems but I’ll keep them to myself since I’m new to Rostra and don’t have influence with the GOP leadership anyways. Thanks for reading.

  17. Jay – The only statewide partisan incumbents are Ol’ JB and the worst attorney general in the U.S.A. ALl the others are open seats. Even in 2010, which was far and away from being even a good Republican year in California, both emeg Whitman and Carly Fiorina won the 52nd by more than 7%. Presidential elections traditionally help Democrats down ballot and gubernatorial elections tend to help Republicans down ballot.

    Elliot – I agree that Carl has a harder time than Peters, all challengers do, but I think you are over estimating the social issues thing. Yes, the Dems will try a low profile whisper campaign, just like they did when Carl ran for city council. I just don’t think it will work. The liberal social issues, like abortion, have not been a major issue for true undecided voters in about 20 years. I think that issues on the right, such as guns, are likely, if Republicans and Carl focus on it, to have a potentially bigger impact.

    The pension issue and votes on the city council are likely to have a big impact, but Carl is a lot sharper at debating and presenting them than Bilbray, and they could matter more if he is able to tie them into are federal fiscal problems. You’re right in that Peters has been able to get away with it because of a wink and a smile, however, I think Carl can present the issues in ways that resonate with voters.

  18. ” But I couldn’t help thinking “what are we going to say to them?” They know who we are (the GOP brand) and they haven’t bought it”

    I disagree. We campaign to everybody…everywhere. There are a lot of people who just don’t know what Republicans stand for because we have let the issues be defined for us. They aren’t buying our brand because Democrats have been selling it to them as poison…and we’ve let this happen.

    “I do have thoughts on how I’d approach these problems but I’ll keep them to myself since I’m new to Rostra”

    Don’t do that. There ain’t no pecking order here and people DO read this site. I”m VERY interested in what you have to say

  19. Hey Brian!

    “I disagree. We campaign to everybody…everywhere. There are a lot of people who just don’t know what Republicans stand for because we have let the issues be defined for us. They aren’t buying our brand because Democrats have been selling it to them as poison…and we’ve let this happen.”

    I think we do need to get out there. But I think we need to start listening first. What are their issues? What are their concerns? The Democrats have a quick, knee-jerk response to everything – government program. It’s their tortilla and they can wrap every issue with it. We went too far down the Karl Rove strategy of energize the base. So we need to listen to the needs of those that left our party and those that vote the Democrats as the lesser evil. Without answering immediately to them we need to come back and look at policy options. Right now we don’t have good answers to the families trying to climb the later (tax cut just doesn’t resonate) among other issues. I’d certainly like to be part of the listening campaign (I like analysis!) and be part of group that starts thinking of options. Does RPSDC have a conservative study group or something?

    “Don’t do that. There ain’t no pecking order here and people DO read this site. I”m VERY interested in what you have to say”

    I won’t elaborate too much on strategy here since Peters probably has someone cruising the internet. If another GOP entered the race that was farther to the right than Carl it would be great for him to differentiate from that winger. That immediately cuts Peters attempt to paint Carl into the corner when Carl can say “no, the extremist is that other guy and he’s not what a new GOPer is about.” A Carl victory over that guy would also signal that GOP rejects the older viewpoints an embraces a new republican, its adds credibility to the new republican idea.

    On the gay issue, Carl needs a “Sister Souljah Moment” confronting the old GOP position. His previous stances were that he finds fiscal over social issues more important. Then avoided it. That’s good but there are people that really care about social issues. Carl shouldn’t just co-opt the Democrat position – that may deflate it a bit, but it gains no votes, and may turn off some of the base. Carl can’t take the social conservative position because it looks like pandering. The Libertarians had something that marriage should be like baptismal certificates but everyone gets a civil union contract. I think that makes sense but social conservatives won’t buy it because it’s a moral issue.

    So the Democrats say it’s about protecting the freedom to love, social conservatives say it’s about morality and traditional family values, libertarians say the government should be out of it. I think the tact there is a stance in the middle of the libertarian position but it has to go like this:

    – If it’s about love then what’s next? government picking prom dates?

    – If the government can decide gay or straight marriages are legal it can change that any time.

    – With Government deciding what is a legal marriage, it will decide who can perform them. We can’t have people suing churches over beliefs older than this country.

    – The sanctity of marriage is about faith or family, not with government. The wedding and the social binding of marriage is not about a government certificate.

    – Government shouldn’t be allowed to regulate marriage. The Government should insure that a contract between responsible adults is upheld. Government shouldn’t be invited to the wedding, it just needs to be there to settle or end a contract dispute between two parties. Everyone knows the marriage is over before the divorce is final. The divorce ends the civil union.

    – The civil union, which can even be improved upon to be a la carte in terms of what the two parties agree on – common property maybe, shared insured maybe, hospital visits maybe. Right now the government imposes a one size fits all rules on a marrying party. The implication is clear, not everyone wants to sign up to all that so they delay marriage or don’t marry at all and the divorce rate is high. That is what’s destroying marriage.

    – Bottomline, government regulation of marriage in the past has ruined the sanctity of marriage and if it continues to have the power to regulate it will continue to do so.

    The debate has to swing from the view that its “the left defending love against those that want to impose their religious beliefs” to a conservative view that it is defending marriage from government regulation. That it is government imposing its view of marriage whenever it wants, not religious people. This way social conservatives will want the government out of deciding what is a legal marriage so churches can freely marry those they believe are acting morally.

    Will gays get “married” in the end? In today’s sense of the word, yes, but even where it’s not legal they still wear rings and live together and may have a civil union. It doesn’t have Marriage on the header of the certificate. Get rid of the header, government shouldn’t be putting it there anyways because its family and/or faith that determines marriage not government.

    That’s the stance I’d take. It’s not passive like he has been doing. It’s not aggressively religious like the GOP has done previously (and starting turning people off). It’s an aggressive stance that says the Left wants the government to be the approving authority to what a marriage is and that’s not right. We don’t need it to do that. It would totally steal the issue from Peters. I also think it would really wake up the middle that cares about this issue because it’s a new look at the debate and it explains why it’s important without a feeling that the right is imposing itself on anyone. More importantly, it might be a position the national GOP may support and it will immediately show him to be a guy that can solve problems now and has respect nationally from the GOP.

    I’m trying to open up my schedule to be at the kickoff (the one Richard emailed out). If I can make it we can talk more there.

  20. Elliot,

    As long as Eve can inherit all of Adam’s possessions tax-free and collect his Social Security while Steve cannot, government will be involved in marriage and in a way that the majority no longer agree with.

  21. Thanks HQ
    I think that is easily addressed. See my a la carte civil unions line. there you can specify the one entity for survivor benefits and break it up between possession and SS. I’d even say this is a good way to look at inheritance rights and let people donate their remaining SS to charity up to 10 years max if they choose.

  22. “Government shouldn’t be invited to the wedding, it just needs to be there to settle or end a contract dispute between two parties”

    Can Thor’s Assistant please give this man Elliot a username and password?

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.