NBC’s Wendy Fry posted a story last night that sheds some light on San Diego’s post-election fallout:
David Malcolm , co-chair of the Lincoln Club’s political action committee and one of the organization’s top donors, re-registered as a “decline to state” Friday.
Malcolm, a lifelong Republican, said he has been frustrated with partisan rhetoric on both sides of the aisle for a while. He said comments from Republican candidates in the Midwest during this campaign season referring to “legitimate rape” and describing rape as “God’s will,” pushed him over the edge and away from his own party.
“The rhetoric … was absolutely unacceptable, appalling and offensive to me; so they lost me,” Malcolm explained to NBC 7 by phone Friday.
After the story broke a spirited Twitter discussion surfaced. It was capped by this tweet from Greg Block to Tony Manolatos, a DTSer himself who also is the Lincoln Club’s spokesman and Rostracontributor:
“Whatever. The Lincoln club is now irrelevant. Enjoy,” tweeted Block, an unabashed Bob Filner supporter.
Ouch!
“Election was Tuesday. You had a very good night. But you’re still angry and bitter. It’s Friday. Time to let it go, man,” Manolatos responded.
The discussion continued this morning with KOGO’s LaDona Harvey tweeting Malcom’s decision is likely the tip of the iceberg, or we’ll see a new Republican Party emerge.
A mountain from a Malcolm molehill? Maybe. It should be noted that although he was a Republican, many would call Malcolm far from partisan over the years, as he’s also been a longtime friend, ally and confidant to former State Senator Steve Peace and former Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown, two high profile and powerful Democrats. Malcolm was never known as a GOP activist or a party leader.
As for the irrelevancy of the the Lincoln Club? One election does not define anything for an organization, despite heavy losses. The future will tell.
Discuss, people! Discuss! As always, thanks for reading Rostra.
Comments 17
Really? Some bozo Republican candidate in another state makes despicable statements about rape, is rejected by the GOP as a result, and yet somehow the incident tars the party nationwide? Maybe on MSNBC, but not in my book.
There are other reasons that could make one consider leaving the GOP, but THIS example ain’t one of ‘em.
It’s not just Akin and Mourdock. It is a complete failure on the part of the GOP to connect with people and clearly articulate that this election was not about uteri. It was the economy, stupid, and we got dragged into irrelevant sidebars like rank amateurs. My party couldn’t be bothered to back a serious candidate for senate against Her Highness, Diane Feinstein. If the GOP didn’t take Emken seriously, why would Feinstein? That’s just one example. This would be a good time to examine what went wrong, and get a clear vision of how to proceed with a concise message that resonates with the people we so adroitly turned-off.
LaDona, I believe a good portion of the GOP’s beating this election, particularly California, was the Latino vote. Republicans must make a big effort about reaching out to Latinos with messages that we should be united on. School choice, less taxes, more jobs through free markets, prioritizing schools and infrastructure over privileged union benefits/high speed rail, are all issues that they should agree with us on.
But a couple small factions within the GOP are quite vocally insistent on blaming almost any economic problem on illegals and then declaring that we need to kick them all out of the country with some sweeping gestapo effort. This position immediately alienates any Latino interest in the Republican party, regardless of their economic leanings on liberty.
I don’t often catch your show, but I hear this blame being thrown around somewhat frequently on other talk shows. It needs to change if the GOP is going to be relevant during a presidential election.
Also, if Barbara Boxer can comfortably survive a highly funded female challenger in an off-presidential election, the chances of Emken taking down Feinstein were slim at best. She ran a good campaign, but the GOP was wise not to dedicate precious resources to her effort.
LaDona,
If the Party continues to believe, as you do, that a woman’s right to control her own body is an “irrelevant sidebar,” then the Party will continue to lose the female vote by double digits. While any President’s real control over the economy is debatable, there is no question that one or two Supreme Court appointments could fundamentally change women’s reproductive rights. I guarantee you that is not a minor issue to be trifled with.
All, really – since Mr. Malcolm felt compelled to leave the Republican Party because of a few comments that are not widely held by most Reps (and they have the right to say anything they want), he has the freedom to leave, God bless him, cooler heads will prevail. Either you have the conservative principles or you don’t. I know Richard and Steve are very libertarian and no one respects that more than I do, I lean that way in some respects too, but this is about a person who believes a party does not speak for him, what is unfortunate is that his actions give the other side ammunition (which I encourage all to stock up on real ammunition), so there you have it, you either have principles like our founding fathers had, or you abandon them.
I chose to stick by my principles, regardless of a few people who may mis-speak or say something that is not what I believe, seriously, I have seen Richard and Steve run for office, it is not easy, Malcolm may benefit us all by running.
Thanks Thor for letting us know the facts.
Ms. Right,
It wasn’t just a few comments. It was a few comments from nominees for Senate of the United States and it was the plain language of the National Party platform that said a women should be forced to complete a pregnancy even if that pregnancy was the result of rape or incest and even if that pregnancy endangered the health of the woman.
all thru these comments I do not see the most important principle of all !
restoring our constitutional republic and national sovereignty
in his acceptance speech, Pres Obama made it perfectly clear to everyone – we live in a democracy (meaning: the republic is dead)
I would hate to be judged by every single word I say, sometimes I talk without considering everything. But in a free country, we are allowed to apologize.
So why are we holding our representatives to some godly standard? They are only human!.
The Republicans better change their priorities and their message fast or we will find out ourselves living in a global governance by the end of 2013. our survival at the will of the U.N.
I wish I was wrong.
I completely agree with him and I also left the party after this pathetic years actions and after being a registered Republican for 40 years plus. The leadership is so screwed up and needs to be replaced. They are totally focused on family and social issues and are ignoring the fiscal issues. They supported a white Obama for president and shut out the best Republican candidate the party has had in 50 years plus. If you haven’t yet, read Ron Paul’s platform. Its the most perfect true republican platform available and would actually help America towards her former glory. Again, Replace the current GOP leadership or the party dies like it should. I rather vote for a gay fiscal conservative, than a war hawk hypocrite liberal that invented obama care any day.
The total lack of agreement by the commenters here explains one of the Republican Party’s fundamental problems: It has become so fractured by disparate ideologies to impart a cogent, cohesive message to voters. What is more important, social values? Economic issues? Foreign policy?
Is this a party concerned about the welfare of the nation, or about its own future viabilty?
One thing is certain: For once, party leaders should stop talking and start listening. It seems like what Republicans have been doing for far too long is preaching. Preaching about how we should live, how we should spend, how we should save. What they had better do is listen to voters and understand what they are saying. Being the stern schoolmarm isn’t working.
I look at this differently; to the victors go the spoils. The Lincoln Club is a business PAC. Democrats now control San Diego with a super-majority on the Council and the mayor’s office. Frankly, it makes good business sense for the business community to be non-partisan at this point.
1) We have four R’s on the council. No Supermajority (yet) for the D’s.
2) We let the Dems bring back the culture wars. Sad since the R’s usually inflict this wound. But Mittster could have nipped in the bud and had his Sister Solja moment at the doomed candidate from Missouri’s expense. He did not…..and all for the want of a nail.
3) Lincoln club has always tried to occasionally play both sides of the field. Note its endorsement of Tony Young. It also passed (bad move on my part) on the Phil T. race way back when. Wiser people than I could see Peters growing from a little Non-partisan bear to a partisan hack. . But I do admit my mistakes.
4) We do have a problem with 18-29 year olds and this does get at the social issues. It is such a pain of an issue to bridge since social conservatives are a core part of the block. But maybe social conservatives could help – figure out not how the party can win these voters but how can YOU???
And on that final note, a question I ask as a boring main line protestant Chuch which is highly a-political. What did the evangelical community in San Diego do? Did Rock Church, for example, get engaged in this race? Church of RB? Sunrise? Because
What did the evangelical community in San Diego do?
I think they did. I”m not part of the evangelical community but I watched their efforts
Did Rock Church, for example, get engaged in this race?
“Rock the Vote” was a few weeks ago and about 400-500 people attended. I went and was impressed with the speakers
Church of RB? Don’t know.
Sunrise? Garlow hosted a few fora about the issues rather than candidates. They were well attended
Sorry guys, but you are missing the big picture here. As has been pointed out variously elsewhere, demographics are not on the Republican’s side…at least not so long as they rely on divisive immigration policy, Evangelicals, anti-gay rhetoric, and iron-clad no tax pledges in the face of fiscal calamity.
When you continue to see photo ops of Republican leadership made up of almost entirely middle-age (or older) white guys…and I am one…you begin to realize the problem the party faces. That is not the way this country looks anymore.
Author
Follow up from NBC:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/Former-Local-Republican-Explains-his-Reasoning-for-Defecting/179049661
Kirk – gotta dance with the one that brought you.
Not my cup of Java but I think you have to start with the Evangelical and Conservative Catholic community as a “base”. Now that doesn’t mean you have to pander to them. Just like the Dems don’t AWAYS pander to their base. But thinking the GOP is going to become pro-choice is just foolish thinking.
Doesn’t mean you have to be as far right right as Atikins. Can be big tent. But I think until public opinion is sorted out one party will be pro-life, with shades of gray and blurred boundaries of what that means.
I do think not allowing for SSM (same sex marriage) is a losing strategy. Public opinion is shifting quickly – because most americans are pretty fine with what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms.
I’ll never understand how the party that supposedly stands for getting government off our backs thinks it can completely violate that premise when it comes to what people do in their bedrooms and women do with their bodies. And, truth be told, while the offical Catholic Church position is clear on matters of birth control and abortion, their parishioners are far from united on the issue, even the Republican ones.
“And, truth be told, while the official Catholic Church position is clear on matters of birth control and abortion, their parishioners are far from united on the issue, even the Republican ones.”
That’s really a non-issue, Kirk. The Church is supposed to bring God’s truth to the Lay Faithful not build a coalition to win elections.
The Republican Party IS a coalition, built to win elections though so your observation about less government makes sense to me.