Elizabeth Emken says it is a good time to be a Republican. She’s running for California’s 7th Congressional district, currently held by freshman Rep. Ami Bera, a Democrat.

If Emken’s name sounds familiar it is because she was the GOP’s U.S. Senate nominee in California in 2012 against Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein.

‘Unring the bell on Obamacare’

Health care is a passionate issue for Emken. “America has some of the finest hospitals, physicians and nurses the world has ever known,” she told me during a recent interview. “We also have a health care system that is struggling with issues of affordability and access.”

“The Obama administration will blame big bad insurance companies,” Emken said. “The irony is it may ‘cover everyone,’ but it will further bifurcate. Prior to 2009, we were working out health care and insurance issues. We were starting to deal with the base inequities between large and small insurance plans, by pushing to open up competition. The competitive pressure problem will only be fixed when we take on the tax code. But President Obama has no desire to deal with the debt, deficit or tax code – because no political good can come from fixing the tax code.”

Currently, Emken explained, employers are encouraged by the federal tax system to be the purchasers of health insurance. Individual persons do not get the tax deduction for insurance. Attempting to contain costs, employers have opted for the various forms of managed care.

“The Supreme Court ruling [approving the program] brought Obamacare’s hidden taxes to the light of day,” Emken said. “With a price tag double what the Democrats promised and growing exponentially every day, the ‘Affordable Care Act’ may be the most ironic title for a major bill in the history of Congress.

Repeal

Emken wants what she calls “Obama’s dishonest attempt at health care reform” to be repealed before its regulations and price controls further damage the availability and quality of health care. “It should be replaced with policies that target specific health market concerns: quality, affordability and access,” she said. “We need a transformational realignment that moves us back toward a system that is affordable and once again, at its core, consists of a medical provider, and a patient, in an exam room.

“Obamacare has undermined positive health care reforms that have been under way since the late 1990s and its skyrocketing costs have become a major deterrent to America’s corporate stability. Even more alarming for individual taxpayers and families, congressional budget analysts are now estimating that nearly 6 million Americans — most of them middle class — will have to pay a penalty for not getting health insurance once Obamacare is fully in place.”

Emken plans on taking this issue to Bera, a medical doctor who campaigned in 2012 as “Dr. Ami Bera.” He beat Rep. Dan Lungren, the Republican incumbent and former California attorney general. Taking back the seat is a key goal of state and national Republicans for retaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“I’ve not found one doctor who likes Obamacare,” Emken said. Bera has supported Obamacare, and voted against the repeal, according to his official Congressional website.

The campaign

Emken called it a time of a lack of jobs. “Small business is feeling crushed,” she said. “The anti-business environment is really felt in my district.”

Emken said smaller businesses in particular are struggling with current healthcare issues, as well as staggering regulations. “There’s a malaise of sorts,” she said. “There’s a disbelief that government can or will fix anything.”

Emken said that what sets her apart from Bera, and her Republican opponents, is her experience and family. “People are desperate for leaders who know what their families are going through,” she said. “And, they believe government is part of the problem.”

Emken worked in management, financial analysis and corporate operations at IBM as an efficiency and cost cutting expert, helping streamline operations, eliminate waste, and save the company millions of dollars.

After her son was diagnosed with autism, Emken began a second career as an executive with Autism Speaks, advocating for developmentally disabled children

She led the national charge, fighting for transparency and accountability on how the National Institutes of Health would spend autism research dollars. Her efforts produced a portfolio analysis of autism spending that would have to withstand public scrutiny — a policy Emken said should apply throughout the entire government.

Senate race 2012

Emken’s U.S. Senate race was particularly interesting because Feinstein refused to debate Emken. Feinstein acted as if the 2012 race for the U.S. Senate was a coronation, and was the only U.S. Senator running for reelection who would not debate her opponent. Voters in California were denied key questions that Emken would have brought to Feinstein about the forthcoming Obamacare implementation.

Emken hopes Bera will debate her, and said she would like the Sacramento Bee to host a debate forum during the primary.

2014 race

By Wayne Lusvardi

Tomorrow California voters will not be voting on the proposed California Water Bond, which has been postponed until 2014.  But voters will be voting on a number of local water projects such as the proposed Hetch Hetchy dam removal, which is Proposition F in San Francisco.

More importantly, California voters will be deciding on three crucial congressional races that will have statewide influence on water policy and projects. The three incumbent members of Congress shown below are California’s “movers and shakers” in federal water policy for California.  Half of California’s water system — called the Central Valley Project — is owned and operated by the federal government.

Below is a summary of the positions of each of the candidates on water issues.  No endorsement of candidates is expressed or implied.

U.S. Senator at Large — California

Congressional District 4  – Northeastern California

Congressional District 21 – Central California

Katy Grimes: Has anyone seen Sen. Dianne Feinstein lately? She refuses to debate challenger Elizabeth Emken, she runs from reporters, and now there is news that Feinstein will not meet with the editorial boards of California’s newspapers.

What prompted her to walk away from Mark Matthews, the ABC reporter during an interview at the Democratic convention? “She (Emken) really wants to debate you,” Matthews told Feinstein during the brief interview.

“I’m running my own campaign. Thank you Mark,” Feinstein said as she started to get up. Then she sat back down and continued. “I did a large event in Modesto, three to four meetings, and Southern California… that’s what I’m going to continue to do,” Feinstein said. Then she got up, patted Matthews on the shoulder in a patronizing manner, and walked away.

“She really does not like that question,” Matthews said. “I saved that question for last.”

Senate royalty

Feinstein needs to be reminded that this is a race for the U.S. Senate — not a coronation. She’s the only U.S. Senator running for reelection who will not debate her opponent.

“U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein continues to enjoy a large advantage in her bid for a fourth full term, with a new statewide poll showing the Democratic senator widening her double-digit lead over GOP challenger Elizabeth Emken,” the Sacramento Bee reported Sunday. “Field Poll results released today show the 79-year-old incumbent leading her opponent by 26 percentage points, 57 percent to 31 percent, heading into the final seven weeks of the campaign.”

But the Bee story failed to note that other polls, including the recent California Business Roundtable/Pepperdine poll show significantly different results, with Feinstein polling at 45.9 percent, Emken at 33.6 percent, and ‘undecided’ voters still reporting in at  20.6 percent.

“Compared with the Field Poll released last month, Feinstein’s lead has shrunk from 19 percent to 12.3 percent among all voters, and just 10.3 percent among those who will ‘definitely’ vote. Feinstein continues to poll well under 50 percent, and leads with just 45.9 percent among all voters. By contrast, President Obama is polling at 52.5 percent, or 6.6 percent better than Feinstein, who has been in the office for nearly 20 years,” the Emken campaign reported.

“Nothing screams ‘entrenched incumbent’ more than a refusal to debate an opponent,” the Los Angeles Times recently wrote.

“I don’t see any point in debating my opponent,” is the response from Feinstein, the Emken campaign reported.

According to a recent Gallup poll, only one in 10 Americans approves of the job Congress is doing, tying the lowest approval rating in 38 years. Given that Feinstein has been in the Senate since 1992, and in politics since 1961, and also polls unfavorably, her refusal to debate publicly can’t help her approval numbers.

Empty chair debate

In 2009, Dianne Feinstein proudly announced support for Solyndra.

“U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today applauded the U.S. Department of Energy’s decision to finalize a $535 million loan guarantee to a California-based solar company, Solyndra,” Feinstein’s official Senate website reported. “The Department of Energy announced the initial selection of Solyndra as a conditional loan guarantee recipient in March and formalized the decision today at a ground-breaking ceremony in Fremont, California.”

“This is a major milestone for California’s solar industry,” Senator Feinstein said. “This federal loan guarantee of $535 million will enable Solyndra to secure affordable financing – at a time when credit is extremely tight – in order to build and operate a commercial-scale facility to manufacture the next generation of rooftop solar systems.  The operation is expected to generate at least 3,000 clean energy jobs in an area whose largest employer – NUMMI – may soon shut down. And it will ultimately help make it more affordable for more Americans to power their homes and buildings through solar energy.  So it’s a win-win for the economy and the environment.”

Feinstein’s ceremonial Senate seat has become an empty chair. Maybe Emken should hold a debate with Feinstein’s empty chair.

Clint Eastwood proved that it can be done effectively.

(Editor’s Note: The first part in a two-part series on how California’s regulations affect the global economy.)

July 26, 2012

By John Hrabe

Regulations are killing California’s global competitiveness. Or, so you’ve heard from policymakers left, right and center.

“Our environmental regulatory system is obsolete, duplicative and burdensome in many areas, which is hurting our business community’s ability to thrive and compete in a global marketplace,” lamented Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon, D-Industry, in an opinion piece at Capitol Weekly.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Emken repeated the complaint a few weeks later.

“Thanks to over-taxation, over-regulation and over-litigation, American companies are at a distinct competitive disadvantage,” Emken wrote in her policy paper on regulations. “This disproportionate cost on small business causes inefficiencies in the structure of American enterprises, and the relocation of production facilities to less regulated countries, adversely affecting our ability to compete in the global marketplace.”

“California has a daunting task to regain its competitiveness,” complained Loren Kaye, president of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education, in a blog post entitled, “Job Killing Bills Hobble California in Global Competition.” The piece continued, “It can’t be a leader in the global economy if it interferes in the global marketplace.”

While there’s some truth to the cliché, it’s not the whole story. Increasingly, it’s the regulations themselves that are being exported globally.

That makes the story of California’s over-regulation even more troubling. Unelected bureaucrats on obscure boards in Sacramento are establishing regulations for the world—in many cases based on weak or contradictory scientific data that is selectively edited by special interest groups.

“The regulatory field has a lemming-like attitude, often reflecting biases,” Dr. F. Peter Guengerich, the interim chairman of the biochemistry department at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, told CalWatchDog.com.

Prop. 65: Hazardous Substance Warning Label

To understand the increasingly global nature of California’s regulations, consider the case of a chemical compound that you’ve likely never heard of and probably can’t pronounce, 4-methylimidazole or 4-MEI. It’s a common byproduct of the cooking process and gives sodas their caramel color.

In March 2009, regulators at the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, a department of California’s Environmental Protection Agency, began the process of adding the chemical to a list of potentially harmful substances. Products that contain chemicals on the list must carry warning labels about their potentially harmful effects. Voters created the process with passage of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.

“Prop. 65 is primarily a right to know law that provides information about exposure to listed chemicals that the public can use to make informed choices,” explained Sam Delson, deputy director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.“The addition of 4-MEI to the Prop. 65 list does not ban it from use in California or anywhere else.”

Of course, who wants to buy something that warns of death on its packaging?

4-MEI Does “Not Represent a Risk”

A substance can be added to the Prop. 65 warning list through one of four ways, including if it has been flagged by any “authoritative body” chosen by an unelected state committee. Some legislators say that this process deserves greater scrutiny.

“As Vice-Chair of the committee of Toxics and Environmental Safety, I have had a front row seat to the show which is legislating the use of chemicals in products that are sold and made in California,” said Assemblyman Jeff Miller, R-Corona. “Over time, what sticks with me, is that we have to be very careful about the decisions we make in California regarding banning or placing chemicals on a list of ‘chemicals of concern.’”

California’s regulators weren’t so careful with 4-MEI. The state began the review process after only one study of mice and rats showed an increased risk of cancer.

“According to California’s regulators, a level of more than 16 micrograms per day would pose a significant risk,” Time cautioned last year. “Meaning it could result in at least one excess case of cancer per 100,000 exposed people.”

The study’s findings weren’t as scary as they sound.

“Basically my advice would be just to relax … I did some simple math. … If you look at the study in terms of what the mice got, in terms of causing any effect, a human being would have to drink more than 1,000 sodas a day,” Dr. Guengerich told ABC News back in 2011, when the chemical first garnered headlines.

Dr. Guengerich’s view is backed up by health and safety agencies from all over the world. The European Food Safety Authority conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence and concluded that 4-MEI is not a health concern. The same goes for Health Canada, the country’s federal health agency. It ruled that 4-MEI does “not represent a risk” to consumers.

Even the original study, which prompted the 4-MEI scare, showed a reduction of tumors in the group of female rats that received the highest dosage of 4-MEI. A 2011 study published in Food Chem Toxicol, an international food chemical toxicology journal, reinforced that finding. “4-MEI itself may possess an ability to prevent tumor formation,” Dr. F. Jay Murray wrote.

Safe Harbor Standard Raised by 81 percent Without Any New Research

Nevertheless, some consumers might prefer a “better safe than sorry standard” when it comes to potentially hazardous products. For this very reason, Prop. 65 required the state to adopt a “safe harbor standard,” or an acceptable exposure level for each chemical. The safe harbor standard for 4-MEI was originally set at 16 micrograms per day. Then, state regulators changed their minds.

The experts were only off by 81 percent. In October 2011, 32 months after the regulatory process began, California increased the safe harbor standard from 16 to 29 micrograms. State regulators confirm that the increase wasn’t based on any new research.

“The change was based not on new research but on adoption of an updated method for calculating human cancer potency based on animal studies,” Delson, the OEHHA’s spokesman, said. “So the effect of setting the NSRL for 4-MEI at 29 micrograms per day instead of 16 was to create a larger “safe harbor” and exempt a larger number of products from Prop. 65 warning requirements.”

That means the decision to label 4-MEI as a potentially hazardous chemical wasn’t based on objective scientific data. Or rather, the science itself isn’t as precise as the public is made to believe.

So, what does 4-MEI have to do with the rest of the world? For that, we return to Dr. Guengerich’s evaluation of the regulatory field’s “lemming-like attitude, often reflecting biases.” There’s a movement afoot to ban 4-MEI in Kenya. The reason: the chemical “has been restricted in the US state of California.”

Coming soon: Part Two: How California’s regulation are sold to other countries.

July 10, 2012

By John Seiler

A new Field Poll shows Republican Elizabeth Emken badly trailing incumbent Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, 51 percent to 32 percent among likely voters. In the new Top Two system, there are no third party votes Emken could poach to increase her number.

Check out her recent appearance on Fox Business.

The new Field Poll shows that Feinstein, whatever happened in the new Top Two primary system, holds her usual commanding lead over a Republican challenger. And similar 2010 results were garnered by Gov. Jerry Brown and Sen. Barbara Boxer against their Republican proponents.

So, how can Emken win?

In the Fox interview, Emken brings up the usual “talking points”: California spends too much. It shouldn’t get  federal aid. Feinstein hasn’t helped. Etc. Booooooring.

It’s not going to work, any more than similar talking points did for Whitman and Fiorina two years ago. The political climate is a little better this time for Republicans, assuming Romney improves his so far pathetic campaign. This time in California, the risible Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger no longer sits in the governor’s chair enacting far-left policies and driving GOP voters from the state. He’s off somewhere making movies to pay alimony.

But the political climate remains toxic for Republicans.

What Emken needs to do is personalize the campaign against DiFi. I recommended such an approach two years ago to the campaign of Proposition 23, which would have repealed AB 32, the jobs-killing Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

The anti-Prop. 23 campaign sure figured out how to win. Look at the image at the right from their campaign. They attacked the oil companies financing Prop. 23 as “Dirty Energy,” demonizing the Texans as being like J.R. Ewing, from the “Dallas” TV show.

In “How Prop. 23 Still Can Win” here on CalWatchDog.com, I recommend, “They need to personalize the campaign — against Arnold.” They didn’t, of course. They lost. Big time.

Personalize it

The Emken campaign needs a tougher camapign against DiFi. First, they need to pick one unpopular issue she’s associated with. Taxes might be the issue. But that’ll be a mess involving the Romney-Obama battle. Because Romney will get wiped out in California no matter what, she should avoid that. And if she gets involved in the anti-Jerry Brown tax increase too much, she’ll just get in the middle of that, eclipsing her own campaign.

But there’s a ready-made outrage: the California High-Speed Rail boondoggle. The Legislature just voted to waste our tax dollars on it. Gov. Jerry Brown is going to sign the waste. And DiFi is a big supporter. She said: “Do I think it’s doable? Yes…. That’s a decision that has to be made.”

This also is a perfect issue for the divisions in the state. To get the votes in the state Senate to pass the Browndoggle, supporters had to pile the pork high in the Bay Area, Feinstein’s home turf. Emken would be lucky to get 10 votes there. So, demonize the Bay Area — divide it from the rest of the state. Play on resentments that Southern California and the inland areas have for the those snooty Marin County elitists.

And although John and Ken have been calling it the Browndoggle, after the spendthrift governor, the Emken campaign should dub it the “Diannedoggle.” It has a nice alliteration to it.

‘Diannedoggle’

This could be an ad:

Headline: “Diannedoggle.”

Animation: The High-Speed Rail train crashing.

Voiceover: “At a time when scarce tax dollars are needed for our schools, Sen. Dianne Feinstein supports wasting that money on a boondoggle train that critics say could cost well over $100 million. It’s the Diannedoggle.”

Video: Picture of hundreds of billions of dollars burning in the train wreckage. Picture of DiFi.

Voiceover: “That’s why it’s being called the Diandoggle: It’s a boondoggle that’s supported by Dianne Feinstein and will benefit her rich Marin County friends.”

Video: Helicopter of massive beach mansions in Marin County.

Voiceover: “With the rest of California picking up the tab through tax increases. This November 6, defeat the bullet train Diannedoggle. Beat Dianne Feinstein. Vote for Elizabeth Emken for U.S. Senate.”

That also should be Emken’s message in all public and TV appearances.

A month ago, I wrote that Emken “looks too nice to be in politics. Politics is a nasty business.” Look at her campaign ad at the top. It reads, “Retire Feinstein!”

It at least should be: “Dump Dianne!!!!” Better: “Dump Dianne!!!! Stop the Diannedoggle!”

Her campaign called me and insisted that she’s “tough enough to win.”

OK. Prove it. Follow my advice.

—————————–

Correction: The original version of this article contained a paragraph that turned out to be incorrect because I heard the video wrong. That paragraph has been cut out. An alert reader pointed it out to us.

— John Seiler

By John Seiler

When I fired up the Drudge Report this morning, the first ad on the top was for Elizabeth Emken. The screen capture is at right. Her campaign obviously had this ready to go after her anticipated victory. They’re targeting computers in California. And Drudge’s viewers tend to skew Republican, especially in Orange County, where I live.

But her campaign is pointless. As Dave Roberts reported on CalWatchDog.com, her campaign is just a full-employment act for Republican consultants. She’s now running into the Feinstein buzz saw.

When I clicked on the Emken ad, I got this (there was a tracking code at the end of the URL which I cut out of the embeded link to the left):

“Dianne Feinstein’s days in Washington are numbered”? Not really.

“Feinstein is about to learn that it’s difficult to run on your record when that record consists of voting for higher taxes, stricter regulations and wasteful spending every time.” Except in California.

“So after two decades in the U.S. Senate, the sweetheart of the far left is facing the political fight of her life.” But DiFi is perceived as a moderate, even by Republicans targeted by this ad.

Indeed, last December Feinstein voted for the tyrannical National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the U.S. government to seize anybody, anywhere, including U.S. citizens right here in once-free America, and put them in secret detention indefinitely. But it also was passed by the “conservative” U.S. House of Representatives, which is run by Republicans. That’s the real definition of a “moderate”: someone who favors both right- and left-wing repression. America in 2012 is a lot like Deutschland c. 1933.

In yesterday’s vote, DiFi got 49.3 percent, Emken one-fourth that, 12.5 percent percent.

It’s true that Gov. Walker beat the recall in Wisconsin. Proposition 29, the $735 million cigarette tax, lost in California. And President Obama gets weaker as the economy falters.

But this is California. In 2010, Meg Whitman spent $180 million and got just 41 percent, although a lot of her poor showing was a reaction to the disastrous governorship of GOP darling Arnold Schwarzenegger. And in the Senate race that year, sitting Sen. Barbara Boxer almost as easily trounced Carly Fiornia, 52 percent to 42 percent. Yet Boxer commonly is considered one of the most liberal politicians in this or any other states. Although, like Feinstein, Boxer supported the NDAA repression.

Another problem for Emken is that she looks too nice to be in politics. Politics is a nasty business. The NDAA, for example, means “disappearing” people, including innocent American citizens, in detention camps — forever. Even at a minimum, it means forcibly taking people’s hard-earned property through taxation. It’s more aptly conducted by mean people, like this one:

By Dave Roberts

In California, there are three certainties: death, taxes and the re-election of Sen. Dianne Feinstein. In 2006, she shellacked Dick Mountjoy by 24 points. In 2000, she trounced Tom Campbell by 19 points.

The grande doyenne of California Democrats has been in the Senate for 20 years and will turn 79 next month. She’s up for re-election and, short of serious illness or death, it’s likely she’ll still be in the Senate when she’s 85 and 91 if she wants.

So it’s not exactly a shock that prominent Republican congressmen like Darrell Issa, David Dreier and Dan Lungren have chosen to sit this one out. That has left the field of challengers to 14 Republicans, five Democrats and four minor party candidates — all of whom have zero to little electoral experience or name recognition. In a crowded field of nobodies, getting their party’s endorsement provides an advantage in winning the second spot in the new top-two primary system and its ticket to the general election in November.

The top two system was instituted by Proposition 14 in 2010.  Under it, the top two winners of June 5 primary will face off in November. No other candidates for U.S. Senate will be on the ballot. Assuming Feinstein is the top vote getter, that means just one other person will face her on the ballot, likely a Republican. Third party candidates will be shut out.

The function of the political parties has been reduced to official endorsements.

In March, the California Republican Party endorsed more than 100 candidates for a variety of offices, including for the U.S. Senate. “As the party prepares to be a vigorous contender in California’s first top two primary, we seek to promote the most competitive candidates in the field this primary season,” said Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro in the press release announcing the endorsed candidates.

Elizabeth Emken won the GOP nod as the most competitive candidate to face Feinstein. However, the Danville autism advocate’s only electoral experience is finishing fourth out of four candidates in the 2010 Republican primary in Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney’s district. Emken received 16.7 percent of the vote. In a district that winds through four counties, Emken didn’t even win her own Contra Costa County, finishing second, just 270 votes ahead of the third-place finisher.

Such a poor showing might be understandable if a candidate were running a token campaign, placing her name in contention for publicity’s sake but doing little campaigning. But Emken ran full out in 2010, spending $456,404 — more than $200,000 of it from her own pocket. That equates to $40 per vote. At that rate Emken would need to raise more than $200 million to best the more than 5 million votes Feinstein gathered in 2006. As of March 31, Emken had raised just more than $300,000. Feinstein’s campaign treasury had more than $7 million on hand.

‘Most competitive candidate’?

So what makes Emken the “most competitive candidate” in the eyes of state GOP officials? One factor is that her senior communications advisor is Mark Standriff, who in January left his position after two years as communications director for the California Republican Party. “Mark has been a tireless member of our senior staff and dedicated himself to improving the CRP’s communications efforts by helping me reach more voters in more corners of our state,” California GOP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro said in a statement upon Standriff’s departure.

In an email interview, I asked Jennifer Kerns, who replaced Standriff as the California GOP communications director, whether it was helpful for Emken in getting the endorsement to have Standriff on her staff. Kerns did not address the question, saying simply, “He was free to consult with any campaign once he departed the CRP.”

Said Standriff in a phone interview, “The only thing it helped is that I am a professional communications director and somebody who has worked on campaigns for years and was able to put together a comprehensive package. I contacted no board members. Frankly, I wish I had that kind of power.”

Standriff said Emken’s experience two years ago in one district’s partisan Republican primary is not relevant to today’s statewide, top-two primary.

“You have to take everything that happened pre-Prop. 14 and throw it out the window,” he said. “All of these other candidates seem to think this is still a partisan primary, and it’s not. It’s open to everybody. That’s why you will see 24 different names on the ballot. So the Republican Party said, ‘Who do we think is the most electable, who has the best chance to get through June 5th and take on Dianne Feinstein?’ Everybody had the chance to present their financial package and show how much money they will be able to raise and present their positions. She’s the only one who has ever gone to Washington D.C. and stood up and said, ‘Enough is enough.’ And that’s a big thing.”

Kerns said Emken’s experience as an autism lobbyist was a major factor in her endorsement.

That was echoed by Jeff Corless, Emken’s campaign manager. He said, “She, unlike the rest of the candidates, not only has business experience and experience helping those truly in need, but also understands the legislative process from day one when she goes back to the Senate, because of her experience in advocacy for autism.”

Endorsement process

Perhaps it’s a case of sour grapes, but several Republican candidates who did not get the endorsement or chose not to participate in the endorsement process, with its $500 buy-in for consideration, have harsh words for the way things went down.

“I believe the Republican Party has committed fraud in its endorsement of Elizabeth Emken by doing so without providing an opportunity for all candidates to be heard,” said Dennis Jackson, an aerospace general manager from Rancho Cucamonga. “Due to the open primary, there were no party debates or any type of debate that was televised.

“I have been a voting Republican since 1968 and would destroy Elizabeth Emken in a debate or in a comparison of backgrounds that would best serve this nation. However, I was never contacted by the Republican Party about any meeting to review my candidacy, policies or background. In making the endorsement in such a manner, the party is playing king-maker and insulting the intelligence of the voters as well as attempting to silence the voice of the candidates that they never even took the time to meet. The party politics seem more in line with the Bolsheviks than the Founding Fathers.”

Disappointment

Also ticked off in Rancho Cucamonga is MBA student Dirk Allen Konopik, who said, “The California Republican Party’s leadership, to include Chairman Tom Del Beccaro, has been a constant disappointment; from their continuous failure to support viable candidates, to the unethical decision to charge U.S. Senate candidates $500 just to consider them for the CRP endorsement. I chose not to pay. It is now very clear to me, after ramping up our U.S. Senate campaign since January 2011, why the Democratic Party controls California. It’s because the CRP is inefficient, ineffective and corrupt. In my opinion, I would rather have the California Federation of Republican Women lead the CRP.”

Also critical is Orly Taitz, the Laguna Niguel attorney who has become known for challenging President Obama’s citizenship.

“The nomination process was a complete fraud, and a number of the candidates are considering suing the corrupt 24 board members,” said Taitz. “Two candidates … talked to the Chair of the Board Tom Del Beccarro and another board member, who told them that the meeting and discussion was just a formality, the decision was already made. So, the Board has collected several thousand dollars from candidates under false pretenses. They used this money to have a nice weekend at a nice hotel and announced the predetermined decision. They defrauded the candidates and the voters.”

Another unhappy candidate is Rick Williams, a Los Angeles attorney.

“I believe the California Republican Party acted improperly by engaging in a process to endorse one candidate in the United States Senate race from a field of 14 good Republicans running for the seat,” he said. “I declined to participate in their disgraceful process. I realized it was a sham and wanted nothing to do with it. The decision as to which candidate should represent the Republican Party against Dianne Feinstein is for voters to make — not a tiny group of insider political operatives at the state party who were trying to tilt the playing field.”

Nachum Shifren, a Santa Monica rabbi, believes the state party snub of his campaign may be an asset: “My chances are helped, since the GOP mafia and good ol’ boys club will never nominate or support a true conservative that threatens the status quo,” he said. “I am having success in precisely distinguishing myself from the other RINO candidates and those that simply won’t take on the difficult issues.”

Kerns dismissed the criticism of the endorsement process, saying, “We provided every candidate the opportunity to be heard, in writing, by phone, and in person. This was to ensure the fairest process.”

If party officials had decided to base their endorsement on the candidate with the best electoral experience, they would have chosen Greg Conlon, a Burlingame CPA.

“I probably have the best chance because I ran statewide in 2002 for state treasurer and received over one million votes in the primary and three million votes in the general election against Phil Angelides, an incumbent,” said Conlon. “Therefore, even though it was 10 years ago, some will remember the name and vote for me now.”

The GOP endorsement may ultimately be irrelevant to the outcome of this year’s election. It’s likely that whoever wins the primary from among the 14 largely unknown and inexperienced Republican candidates will become a sacrificial lamb led to the Feinstein slaughter in November.