Squeezed by the 2011 budget sequester, the Pentagon is eager to launch the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process for the sixth time to close down thousands of facilities it says it no longer needs — freeing up billions of dollars in funding.

This could be bad news for California, which has 322 military installations pumping billions of dollars into the local economy around the Golden State. Eighteen of the bases are classified as large, triple the number of any other state.

While the Defense Department’s call for BRAC cuts have been routinely rebuffed by Congress since the 2005 round, this time it’s getting a friendlier reception. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said last week that he supported another round of BRAC cuts in 2018 and had introduced the Military Infrastructure Consolidation and Efficiency Act toward that end.

The ranking Republican and Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee — John McCain of Arizona and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, respectively — appeared ready to back a new BRAC if the idea was supported by new Defense Secretary James Mattis, who wants to target Pentagon waste but has not weighed in to date specifically about BRAC.

According to a Pentagon report to Congress last April, military leaders believe they could close 22 percent of all bases with no loss in defense capabilities.

Pentagon officials want to make sure the commission that designates bases for closure after receiving a list of recommendations from the various armed services is truly independent. The 2005 BRAC was considered a success by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other California officials because the Golden State escaped any major hits. But it was seen as a disaster by the Defense Department because political interference sharply reduced savings from closings.

Pentagon has targeted Norco base before

If the BRAC process is revived, the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Norco, shown above in a 2011 U.S. Navy photo, could be the California facility that is most at risk. The center, which employs more than 1,200 people and generates $150 million annually for the local economy, has been targeted for closure repeatedly by the Pentagon, most recently in 2005, only to win reprieves from the BRAC commission.

The possibility of a new BRAC round was seen as big news in San Diego County, home to the largest concentration of military personnel in the United States.

But while the county could have to deal with losing some facilities, it also has a chance to benefit from BRAC. The Washington Times reported in 2012 that Navy officials were interested in consolidating operations by moving warships from Washington state to San Diego. The need for such consolidations remains huge, according to former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The base-closing process was launched by the Reagan administration and Congress in the late 1980s as the Cold War wound down and the threat posed by the Soviet Union waned.

At this month’s state GOP convention in Sacramento, the California Republican Party approved the charter of the Log Cabin Republicans of California by an 861-293 vote, making it an officially recognized party organization. Much of the attention following the vote has focused on the political consequences: How the chartered club can help with the party’s re-branding and outreach to the state’s gay and lesbian community.

“This is about working together to win elections in California,” John Musella, the club’s incoming chairman, said in a recent press release. “Being officially recognized sends a strong signal that the Republicans’ ‘Big Tent’ has room for everyone. Our chartering in California should serve as an example of how every Republican organization can stand proud and work together.”

The political impact is significant, but that’s hardly the most important part of the story. In an era when pundits describe politics as hopelessly divided, a group of outcasts succeeded in changing the hearts and minds of their adversaries. The Log Cabin Republicans didn’t just win a charter — they won a major argument in the culture wars in California.

“Seventy-five percent of the body — 75 percent — overwhelmingly affirmed our place in the party,” said Charles Moran, past president of the Log Cabin Republicans of California. “The Republican Party has moved away from fighting those ideological battles and is now focused on winning elections.”

Gays once “the ultimate enemy”

The party has come a long way since those past “ideological battles.” The state party once was led by such Log Cabin opponents as Rep. Bill Dannemeyer, Rep. Bob Dornan and the Rev. Lou Sheldon. Only two decades ago, any association with the gay club was considered toxic in a GOP primary. It’s been 15 years since moderate Republicans joined conservatives in campaigning for Proposition 22, the state’s 2000 defense of marriage initiative that was passed by 61 percent of voters.

And it’s only been seven years since Proposition 8, which also banned same-sex marriage, was passed by 52 percent of state voters.

“In the 1980s, I was afraid to walk around the state convention alone,” Frank Ricchiazzi, a longtime Log Cabin Republican leader, told the L.A. Times in 2012. “I could see the hatred in the eyes of some of those people.”

Back in the late 1970s, when gay Republicans began to organize, they faced off against GOP Assemblyman John Briggs, who had proposed a 1978 initiative to ban gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. Proposition 8 lost, getting 42 percent of the vote.

“I assume most of them are seducing young boys in toilets,” the conservative Orange County lawmaker said in defense of his Briggs Amendment, according to Gustavo Arellano’s book, “Orange County: A Personal History.” San Francisco, according to Briggs, was nothing more than “the moral garbage dump of homosexuality in this country.”

Although the measure failed, thanks in part to opposition from Ronald Reagan, it still didn’t lessen the rhetoric from some California Republicans.

In the 1980s, Congressman Bill Dannemeyer led the charge with his work, “Shadow in the Land: Homosexuality in America.” He thought “AIDS was God’s way of punishing gays” and described gays and lesbians as “the ultimate enemy.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Dannemeyer believed gays would “plunge our people, and indeed the entire West, into a dark night of the soul that could last hundreds of years.”

1998 Senate race

In the 1990s, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, leader of the Traditional Values Coalition, was at the height of his power. He helped elect Republicans by distributing 4 million voter guides to California churches.  Sheldon routinely cited the threat of “homosexuals” in his literature and held conferences to mobilize like-minded conservatives. A 1991 symposium at the Disneyland Hotel drew spirited opposition from gay and lesbian activists, five of whom were arrested for disrupting the event.

Throughout the 1990s, Sheldon was a central player in GOP politics, while any association with the Log Cabin Republicans could be used as a hit piece against Republicans. In the 1998 U.S. Senate race, GOP Senate candidate Matt Fong was criticized in the primary for receiving support from the Log Cabin Republicans. Fong, considered a moderate, received the club’s backing despite his support for the Defense of Marriage Act. Ironically, the Log Cabin Republicans raised $8,000 for Fong who, in turn, donated $50,000 to Sheldon’s anti-gay group.

“Rev. Lou is a friend,” Fong said of the donation, when it was unearthed for the general election against incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer. “We were working on the Defense of Marriage Act initiative that he was contemplating. It is an act that was supported in principle by President Clinton. I support the defense of a traditional marriage.”

Fong lost the 1998 election to Boxer, 53 percent to 43 percent. The son of longtime Democratic California Secretary of State Marge Fong Eu, he died in 2011 at age 57.

Two years after Fong’s defeat, in 2000 Republican State Sen. Pete Knight authored Proposition 22, a 14-word initiative to ban gay marriage.

The campaign was managed by GOP political consultant Rob Stutzman. He told columnist Debra Saunders polygamy might be next because “there’s a logical extension to it … if you accept the premise that marriage should be whatever relationships people want to enter into.”

Prop. 22 was endorsed by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who came in second that year for his party’s presidential nomination to future President George W. Bush. In 2008, McCain garnered his party’s presidential nod, but lost to Democrat Barack Obama. Both McCain and Obama opposed same-sex marriage; in 2012, Obama changed his position and backed it.

Barney Frank

Hostility from the right was matched by hostility from the left. Some in the gay and lesbian community viewed the Log Cabin Republicans as “self-loathing” at best or traitors at worst.

“I now understand why they call themselves the Log Cabin Republicans: Their role model is Uncle Tom,” openly gay Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., wrote in 2012; he left office in 2013. “Twenty years now I’ve been hearing why the Log Cabins are gonna make the Republicans better and they’ve been getting worse.”

Frank was referring to “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” the 1852 novel that helped spark the Civil War; the title character, a slave, is excessively subservient to his white masters.

Yet this month, instead of prominent party leaders using their convention speeches to attack the “homosexual lifestyle,” they embraced the state’s gay Republicans.

“They have been solid soldiers in their fight against leftist tyranny in California,” said California’s Republican National Committeeman Shawn Steel. “I would welcome them in our organization. … I am proud to have them in the California Republican Party.”

H/T to OC Weekly & LA Times for archives. 

Efforts to reform the system began in the U.S. Senate. Republican Sens. Jeff Flake, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham worked with four Democratic Senators to draft immigration legislation. Ultimately, the 844 page bill could be summarized thusly:

The Gang of Eight bill would essentially revamp every corner of U.S. immigration law, establishing a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, with several security benchmarks that have to be met before they can obtain a green card. The measure would not only increases security along the border, but requires a mandatory workplace verification system for employers, trying to ensure no jobs are given to immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States.

It also includes a new visa program for lesser-skilled workers – the product of negotiations between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor unions. And it shifts the country’s immigration policies away from a family-based system to one that is focused on more on work skills.

It passed the Senate in June 68-32, with 14 Republicans going every Democrat in supporting the bill. The compromise was such an accomplishment that the New Yorker even wrote a long piece describing how it came about. Then all eyes turned to the Republican-controlled House.

Most, if not all, Democrats have supported immigration reform that includes pathway to citizenship provisions. House Republicans also showed a relatively strong amount of support for reform. Last month, CalWatchdog wrote about some California Republicans moving to the left on immigration reform, despite the small likelihood of any legislative action actually occurring:

Although Issa, Valadao and Denham all would like to see some form of immigration reform happen soon, it’s unlikely to occur this year. House leadership has indicated that their focus will be on passing fiscal reforms over immigration, and the recent government shutdown left many Republicans unenthusiastic about compromising with their Democratic colleagues.

Now it appears as though reform is all but certain to fail this year:

House Speaker John Boehner signaled Wednesday that comprehensive US immigration reform was dead this year, saying the existing Senate measure offering a pathway to citizenship would not get a vote.

And although it’s dead for 2013, advocates say that they will continue to pester Republican lawmakers in the House until they take up some form of immigration reform legislation. But those hoping for reform next year shouldn’t hold their breath.

Consider the Republican Party’s bargaining position. If problems with Obamacare continue, then it will almost certainly result in losses for Democrats in the House and Senate. Vulnerable red-state Democrats in the Senate—swept into office during Obama’s wave election of 2008—are particularly vulnerable because of their previous support for the law. Why would Republicans take up immigration reform—a politically fraught issue to begin with—when they can simple move on the legislation in 2015, when they have more politically sound ground to negotiate from.

Immigration reform in 2013? Not happening. In 2014? Doubtful. In 2015? It might just go down. Keep your eyes on the midterm results.

It’s long been conventional wisdom that little, if anything, can be accomplished in the nation’s capital. The government shutdown, essentially a worst-case scenario of gridlock, only further reinforces the point. Story after story shows how toxic relationships, divided government, and polarized constituencies have made the last few years particularly unproductive in Washington, D.C.

Meanwhile, California — under a one party, filibuster-proof rule — is undergoing rapid transformation, ill-advised or not. Scores of bills affecting virtually all Californians were passed.

One policy area in which California — home to Silicon Valley — has significantly sped up change is online privacy. Gov. Jerry Brown has signed several bills that make important changes to online privacy law, an area that has seen little action in D.C. Even more interestingly: the California legislature actually passed each online privacy bill with either unanimous or significant bipartisan support.

In September, Brown signed into law legislation that would give minors an “eraser button” for online activity. Currently, social networks like Facebook and Twitter allow users to delete posts; the law requires all websites to allow minors to delete content they generated — and to clearly explain how to go about it. The bill passed the Assembly 62-12 and the state Senate 38-0.

On October 1, on the same day the partial federal government shutdown began, Brown signed into law a bill that would make posting “revenge porn” — the practice of sharing nude pictures from a previous romantic partner online — a crime. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate. Only Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, opposed the measure in the Assembly. Although critics charged that the law is filled with potential loopholes that make prosecution difficult, most hailed it as at least an imperfect step in the right direction.

AB370

The most substantive legislation that’s became law, though, is AB370, a bill signed into law last month after passing through the Senate and Assembly unanimously. The Verge explains how the law works:

[AB 370]…requires internet companies that collect personally identifiable information to declare how they respond to Do Not Track requests. The idea is to pressure advertising networks like Google's AdSense and Facebook's FBX to be more transparent about how they track users' activity around the web.

Currently, users can only ask companies not to track their activity without knowing whether or not the company will comply. The law forces the companies to do so. It’s a popular law among internet privacy advocates who have hoped for federal legislation that would address the problem….

Brown's signature comes as Do Not Track's future has been called into question at the national level. Earlier this month, a key online advertising industry group pulled out of discussions to create a national Do Not Track standard. The Digital Advertising Alliance, a trade group that represents advertisers, said discussions with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) had “reached the end of [their] useful life.” It was the latest in a series of setbacks that has seen the W3C miss multiple deadlines to craft a final proposal for the Federal Trade Commission and Congress to review.

Gov. Brown, a man who has always harbored national political ambitions, likely will not make another run for president. But he hasn’t given up on trying to affect national politics. Whether or not Do Not Track legislation gains traction at the federal level will be testament to just how powerful Brown’s voice remains on the national stage.

Currently, no federal lawmakers have announced plans to advance such legislation. It last had a chance in 2011, when Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., (now the secretary of state) and John McCain, R-Ariz., pushed a bipartisan reform bill.

By John Seiler

Sometimes I wish people would take a course in logic. Here’s a free one.

The Chronicle reported in a story by Richard S. Dunham:

“It seems like an obscure court case from a dusty old law book, but if Canadian-born Texas Sen. Ted Cruz decides to run for president, you’re likely to hear a lot about United States vs. Wong Kim Ark.

“In the 1898 case, the Supreme Court voted 6-2 to repudiate the exclusive language of the infamous Dred Scott case and create an expansive definition of the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” clause.

“That’s important because the Constitution requires that the president be a natural-born citizen – and Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, in 1970.”

So far so good. But then this:

“In 2008, both presidential nominees faced lawsuits to disqualify them based on their place of birth….

“GOP nominee John McCain, the son of a naval officer, was born in the Panama Canal Zone, then a U.S. territory, in 1937, months before Congress approved a law guaranteeing birthright citizenship to children of military personnel serving abroad. To erase any doubt, the U.S. Senate approved a bipartisan resolution confirming McCain’s citizenship, and a legal challenge to his eligibility was rejected.

“There was far more fuss over false claims that McCain’s Democratic rival, Obama, was born in Africa. A series of lawsuits were tossed out of court.

“None of the anti-Obama ‘birthers’ has stepped forward to challenge Cruz.”

In the comments section, someone named “caldroolidge” (oh, liberals are so clever!) wrote:

“None of the anti-Obama ‘birthers’ has stepped forward to challenge Cruz. You mean they were a bunch of lying hypocrites from the beginning? Shocking.”

Do you see the problem? In 2008, both McCain and Obama were candidates for president. But Cruz is not a candidate. He might be in the future; he likely will be. But as of today, he isn’t. So there’s no reason to “challenge Cruz.”

And the “birthers” only would be “lying hypocrites” if they didn’t challenge Cruz if he becomes a candidate. Caldroolidge also calls them a “bunch,” tying them together. But there were thousands of “birthers,” and it’s almost certain that, should Cruz run in 2016, some of them will challenge him as well on his birth.

I also remember that this came up in the 1968 election when Republican Michigan Gov. George Romney, born in Mexico to American parents, ran for president. He was challenged on his birth, but he faded in early primaries so the issue never got legs. He was Mitt’s pa.

Syllogism

Here’s a syllogism Dunham and Droolidge seem to be advancing:

Major Premise: The “birthers” challenge any candidate for president not born in the U.S. on his eligibility.

Minor Premise: X is a candidate for president not born in the U.S.

Conclusion: Therefore, the “birthers” will challenge X on his eligibility.

But the Minor Premise is false in the case of Cruz because he’s not a candidate. So the syllogism is false.

I grew up with liberal professors and politicians who could think. Guys like Sen. Eugene McCarthy and my professor at the University of Michigan, Carl Cohen. Even though we disagreed on many things, I learned from them and admired them.

Not that conservatives are all that great at logic either, but liberalism seems to have descended into paralogy and name calling.

By John Seiler

Republicans now are searching for a new path for their party. They’re realizing they can’t win with their current policies. They’re trying to be a new, “hip,” “with it,” pro-middle class party. So here’s where they’re doing, as reported by Laurence Vance:

“This past Friday, an “Internet Sales Tax” amendment (no. 656) to S.Con.Res. 8, sponsored by Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi, passed the Senate with the support of twenty-six Republicans, many of them known as conservatives, with most of them talking about how conservative they are when facing a Democrat in an election.

“Here are the senators: Alexander (R-TN), Blunt (R-MO), Boozman (R-AR), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), Corker (R-TN), Crapo (R-ID), Enzi (R-WY), Fischer (R-NE), Graham (R-SC), Hoeven (R-ND), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Johnson (R-WI), Kirk (R-IL), McCain (R-AZ), Moran (R-KS), Portman (R-OH), Risch (R-ID), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Wicker (R-MS).”

So, just like the Democrats, the Republican Party favors taxing the Internet, which the middle-class — including all those immigrants the GOP now is trying to attract — uses for commerce, communication and fun.

Note the presence there of Sen. John McCain, the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee. The party’s problems didn’t begin with Mitt Romney, the 2012 nominee — and himself a notorious tax raiser with his RomneyCare socialized medicine scheme in Massachusetts when he was governor there.

It’s becoming harder to find a reason why the Republican Party should continue operating.

By Steven Greenhut

SACRAMENTO -– Don’t you hate it when life starts to resemble one of those bleak, futuristic dystopian movies? I’m thinking of an almost unfathomable reality –- local and state governments are joining the feds in buying unmanned aerial vehicles -– drones -– to patrol the skies.

Many uses for drones are innocent enough, such as for scientific endeavors and search-and-rescue missions, but many cities are grabbing Department of Homeland Security grants to buy these devices as part of their ongoing law-enforcement efforts. Agencies want to use them to, for example, monitor the border, search for drug dealers, hunt alleged criminals and target alleged terrorists.

Records obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation found scores of applications from local governments for drone permits, as well as widespread patrolling of U.S. skies by military officials. We’re familiar with conspiracy theorists, who warned of “black helicopters” and a military takeover of our society. But these drones are far more advanced than helicopters -– and thousands of them might be quietly circling overhead within a few years.

The ramifications of our drone-ization

This brings to mind images of that cheesy 1987 movie, “Robocop,” in which a cyborg police officer battles thugs. These days, crime rates are at nearly historic lows, and we’re as likely to die from a meteor strike than a terrorist attack. Yet, Americans seem insufficiently concerned about the ramifications of the drone-ization of society.

Again, some uses for drones are benign -– but their widespread use by government raises serious questions.

There are some practical concerns. For instance, a Washington Post article from November found that poorly trained military contractors were making repeated blunders in operating these aircraft, leading to multiple crashes at busy airports. In other words, this video-game-like process is leading to real-world dangers.

But the biggest fear involves our freedoms. We should be able to live our lives without being constantly monitored by the authorities – unless the authorities have a specific, court-endorsed reason for the intrusion.

The Bill of Rights puts strong emphasis on due legal process and on protecting citizens from unwarranted search and seizure because those are among the cornerstones of a free society. The New York Times found that drone operators at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico practice their skills by tracking and spying on the occupants of civilian cars driving near the base, which is a small reminder that there is always the temptation for government to abuse its powers.

There are so many laws and regulations on the books that Americans are rightly worried about how closely the government should watch us.

The filibuster that created a national debate

Rand Paul’s 13-hour Senate filibuster, his way of demanding that the president detail his policy on killing Americans via drone strikes on U.S. soil, succeeded on several counts. The administration ultimately did respond.

The marathon of talking, which delayed the confirmation vote on a new CIA director, pushed the drone issue onto the national agenda. And it assembled the beginnings of a political coalition that defies typical partisan boundaries.

Left-leaning news site Politico saw Paul’s concern as part of an “increasingly hysterical strain of conservative thought.” MSNBC’s typically liberal viewers supported the “targeted killing of Americans” by 78 percent to 22 percent in an online poll.

On the right, Sen. John McCain mocked Paul, his fellow Republican senator, as “wacko.” The hawkish Wall Street Journal labeled Paul’s speech a rant and then lectured him: “The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an ‘enemy combatant’ anywhere at any time, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant.”

The Journal’s editorial writers are missing something that Paul’s supporters seem to understand: If government officials are left to determine an “enemy combatant,” they will tend to draw that distinction as broadly as possible.

Then, there is the collateral damage. “[A] new study from researchers at NYU and Stanford concludes that as many 881 civilians -– including 176 children -– have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in northern Pakistan since 2004,” said Reason magazine’s Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie. It’s naive to think that domestic uses will always be handled without problem.

Just how much do you trust your government?

The new dividing line is the same as the old one: It’s between those Americans who, in the spirit of our founders, recognize that our own government can become a serious threat to our liberties, and those who are so trusting of government that they are willing to give it nearly unlimited powers to “protect” us.

Hence, we’re seeing coalitions of Democrats and Republicans pushing limits on states’ use of drones, just as we’re seeing coalitions of Democrats and Republicans criticizing those of us fearful about the militarization of society. In California, for instance, a bipartisan bill (Assembly Bill 1327) would place some modest limits on drone use by local agencies.

That’s a welcome sign that there might be some pushback on this disturbing mix of government power and high technology. We better push back hard and fast –- before our society more closely resembles some dark, futuristic Hollywood scenario.

Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Write to him at steven.greenhut@franklincenterhq.org.

By Katy Grimes

As long as I have followed politics closely — since Junior High school in the 1970’s — I’ve said political consultants will be the death of the Republican Party.

And now, finally, a political consultant finally agrees with me. “The way it works is this–ever since we centralized politics in Washington, the House campaign committee and the Senate campaign committee,  they decide who they think should run,” Pat Cadell said at the CPAC conference. “You hire these people on the accredited list [they say to candidates] otherwise we won’t give you money. You hire my friend or else.”

“Pat Caddell, the Fox News Contributor and Democrat pollster who engineered Jimmy Carter’s 1976 Presidential victory, blew the lid off CPAC on Thursday with a blistering attack on ‘racketeering’ Republican consultants who play wealthy donors like ‘marks,'” Breitbart.com reports.

“When you have the Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee and the political director of the Romney campaign, and their two companies get $150 million at the end of the campaign for the ‘fantastic’ get-out-the-vote program…some of this borders on RICO [the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] violations,” Caddell told the crowd. “It’s all self dealing going on. I think it works on the RICO thing. They’re in the business of lining their pockets.”

What else could possibly explain John McCain or Mitt Romney, or in California, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina? These were all decisions made by the political establishment, despite other viable candidates.

“As a Democrat, Caddell said he could tell the truth about the failings of the Republicans 2012 campaign efforts since ‘I have no interest in the Republican Party,'” Breitbart.com reported. “He compared Republicans unfavorably to Democrats.’In my party we play to win. We play for life and death. You people play for a different kind of agenda…Your party has no problem playing the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters.'”

In other words, Republicans play for big money and self-enrichment, while Democrats play to win. Look at America right now, and look at California… could it be any more clear?

On the Romney campaign, Cadell said, “There was a failure of strategy, a failure of tactics, a massive failure of messaging. Most of all there was a total failure of imagination.”

“Caddell singled out Stuart Stevens, a key figure in Romney’s campaign, in a particularly withering critique. “Stevens had as much business running a campaign as I do sprouting wings and flying out of this room,” he said.

Meg Whitman spent $160 million on her failed campaign for California governor.

She paid millions each to seven consultant vendors:

* the Majority Strategies direct mail concern ($5.4 million)
* Arena Communications, GOP political mail experts ($5 million)
* Campaign advisor Scott Howell, whose “strategic media firm” touts ties to Karl Rove ($4.5 million)
* Tokoni Inc., a social networking concern that worked for Whitman in the primary ($3.8 million)
* strategist Mike Murphy’s Bonaparte Films LLC ($1.1 million)
* SJZ LLC, a Massachusetts fundraising firm founded by Spencer Zwick, an adviser to former Gov. Mitt Romney ($1.1 million)
* Intuitive Technology Solutions, which stages events ($1 Million)

And Whitman brought in the usual big-bucks GOP consultants and advisers, California Watch reported. “Tack on $11.6 million for political consultants, $10.5 million for mail and an astonishing $106.9 million for broadcast advertising, and you get an idea of how Meg Whitman spent more than $160 million,” California Watch reported.

* campaign manager Jillian Hasner ($829,000)

* senior adviser Jeff Randle ($512,000)

* deputy campaign managers W. Todd Cranney ($350,205)  and Tucker Bounds ($273,000)

* press secretary Sarah Pompei ($202,000).

“Even though Whitman’s campaign was largely self-financed, she also spent heavily on fundraising. Payees included GOP fundraising specialist Jill Huerter ($696,000), the online fundraising concern BlueSwarm LLC ($640,000) and On Target Fundraising of Oregon ($528,000).”

Whitman’s campaign is just one example of how much money flows through campaigns, and how much consultants and advisors make, win or lose.

While the California Watch report included some of Brown’s campaign spending, the glaring flaw was the omission of the vast union spending done on Brown’s behalf. Republican candidates face daunting union pushback, but that is no justification for the gross self-profiting.

“You won the House [in 2012] because of the reapportionment that came after the 2010 [Tea Party] victories,” Cadell said. “Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), elected in 2010, and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), elected in 2012, had to fight this establishment at every step in the process and ‘claw their way’ to electoral success.”

By John Seiler

Tony Quinn gets things partly right when he writes in a Fox & Hounds article, “Are Republicans Finally Learning to Count?“:

“But now some Republicans at last want to face that reality and make some changes.  I call them the Republicans Who Can Count.

“The Republicans Who Can’t Count were on full display in 2012. Presidential nominee Mitt Romney ran the most vitriolic anti-immigrant campaign in the primaries; Asian and Latino turnout and straight ticket Democratic voting in the general election was the highest in history. Some GOP legislators in battleground states thought the way to victory was to repress minority voting; African Americans turned out in states like Ohio and Florida at historical records.  GOP pollsters modeled a voter turnout that did not exist and ended up looking like fools on election day when a flood of Democrats showed up and dealt their candidates defeat after defeat.

“Now the Republicans who can count are moving to take over the party with a mission to stop alienating the fastest growing parts of the American electorate, and also to stop running fringe candidates whose only goal seems to be to turn off moderate voters.”

It’s true the GOP is having problems attracting Latino voters. It’s likely to continue to do so no matter what it does. Voting patterns generally are locked in for families and ethnic groups for generations. It’s hard to change them.

And he ignores an even bigger constituency: The Republican “base” that wants not to “reform” immigration, but to end it entirely. If they’re alienated, then the GOP can’t win, either.

The immigration restriction “base” for the GOP is like public-employee unions are for the Democrats in California. They’re the strongest faction. The only way to get around them is to lie to them.

McCain-Kennedy

Hence, Sen. John McCain co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy immigration amnesty in 2005. He downplayed that in his 2008 presidential run. After he was wiped out by Obama that November, then re-elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, he went back to pushing amnesty.

Just Tuesday, an “angry crowd” confronted McCain over his pro-amnesty agenda:

“Sen. John McCain defended his proposed immigration overhaul to an angry crowd in suburban Phoenix….

“McCain hosted two town hall meetings in Arizona, during which he defended his immigration plan to upset residents concerned about border security….

“During a heated town hall gathering in the Phoenix suburb of Sun Lakes, McCain said the border near Yuma is largely secure, but he said smugglers are using the border near Tucson to pump drugs into Phoenix. He said immigration reform should be contingent on better border security that must rely largely on technology able to detect border crossings.

“McCain said a tamper-proof Social Security card would help combat identity fraud, and noted any path to citizenship must require immigrants to learn English, cover back taxes and pay fines for breaking immigration laws.

“‘There are 11 million people living here illegally,’ he said. “We are not going to get enough buses to deport them.”

“Some audience members shouted out their disapproval.

“One man yelled that only guns would discourage illegal immigration. Another man complained that illegal immigrants should never be able to become citizens or vote. A third man said illegal immigrants were illiterate invaders who wanted free government benefits.

“McCain urged compassion. ‘We are a Judeo-Christian nation,’ he said. McCain’s other town hall meeting took place in Green Valley, south of Tucson.”

That’s the Republican “base,” and it’s not going away. I’m sure the “base” also was amused at getting a Sunday School lesson on “Judeo-Christian” morality for someone who, as noted, hid his position on amnesty during his 2008 campaign and his 2010 Senate re-election campaign. Oh, and he was part of the Keating Five banking scandal crooks.

Can’t win scenario

So, Republicans can’t win with the immigration restriction “base,” and can’t win without ’em. At about half the party’s strength, this “base” is far greater than any potential new Latino votes that might be garnered by embracing amnesty.

McCain himself got a scare. In 2004, McCain had no primary opponent. But in his 2010 Senate primary, challenger J.D. Hayworth grabbed 32 percent of the vote largely by pointing out McCain’s pro-amnesty record (see YouTube below). In pro-military Arizona, war hero McCain is Senator-for-Life. But a 32 percent challenge is serious.

Quinn also should have pointed out, as I often have, that since Reagan left, the GOP has run one dud candidate after another for president beginning in 1988: the Bushes, Dole, McCain and Romney. And their campaigns have been risible. Meg Whitman ran a better campaign than Romney.

The GOP’s only chance is for an overall federal and state government default to be blamed on the Democrats. Which is coming.

By John Seiler

With a name like Lance-Arm-Strong, Lance Armstrong should have kept fighting the anti-doping charges against him. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency just supposedly “stripped” him of his seven titles, although it’s not clear if they have the authority to do so, and he might still have the titles. Said Robert Luskin, his lawyer:

“I think Lance ultimately decided he’d rather be eaten alive by zombies than locked in a room with lawyers for the next five years of his life with no promise at the end of it that there would be any peace.”

That’s an understandable sentiment. But somebody has to fight these bureaucratic flesh eaters. Moreover, less than three months ago, Armstrong blew $1.5 million pushing Proposition 29, which would have raised taxes on cigarettes for $735 million in unaccountable cancer research. The initiative especially would have hit poor people, who smoke more than the rest of Californians. It would have put in jail more people for violating laws against black markets. And it would have given employment to hundreds more lawyers.

If he was willing that much dough to stick the state with thousands of legal actions, why didn’t he have the guts to keep fighting his own legal action? Maybe he’ll tell us.

Anyway, here’s what Wikipedia wrote about the tyrannical U.S. Anti-Doping Agency:

“The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is a non-profit, non-governmental^[1] organization and the national anti-doping organization (NADO) for the United States….

“In 2001 the agency was recognized by the U.S. Congress as ‘the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States.’^[4] USADA is not a government entity, however the agency is partly funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), with its remaining budget generated from contracts for anti-doping services with sport organizations, most notably the United States Olympic Committee.^[5]“

“non-governmental”? Actually, if it’s “recognized by Congress” and takes tax money, the USADA really is a part of the government, despite it’s alleged independence. And the legal system itself is run by the government.

Manic McCain

Moreover, the anti-doping mania has been given a boost by grandstanding congressmen, in particular Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who lost a presidential bid four years ago. Here’s what happened in July:

“Senator John McCain lent support Friday to the United States Anti-Doping Agency in its case against Lance Armstrong, saying the agency follows a fair process that has been authorized by Congress and that it has the right to investigate and bring charges against Armstrong.

“’This process is the proper forum to decide matters concerning individual cases of alleged doping violations,’ McCain said in a statement.”

Normally I don’t agree with Michael Hiltzik, the L.A. Times columnist. But yesterday he wrote a great column defending Armstrong:

“With the whole world atwitter over Tour de Francechamp Lance Armstrong‘s decision to drop his legal fight against anti-doping allegations, it’s the right moment to be appalled at the travesty in sports this case represents.

“It’s not that the case will be seen as a major victory for sports anti-doping authorities. It’s that the anti-doping system claiming its highest-profile quarry ever is the most thoroughly one-sided and dishonest legal regime anywhere in the world this side of Beijing.

“It’s a system deliberately designed to place almost insurmountable hurdles in the way of athletes defending themselves or appealing adverse findings. Evidence has emerged over the years that laboratories certified by the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, have been incompetent at analyzing athletes’ samples or fabricated results when they didn’t get the numbers they were hoping to see.

“Athletes’ defense attorneys harbored some hope that by picking a fight with Lance Armstrong, the anti-doping system might have sowed the seeds for its own reform. Finally, it was thought, here was an athlete with the money and motivation to expose the legal sophistry, the pseudoscience, the sheer sloppiness that underlies sports anti-doping prosecutions all over the world.

“Instead, the outcome shows that the system is so relentlessly rigged that even Lance Armstrong doesn’t see a point in fighting it.”

Who will fight?

Actually, someone who has the stamina to fight would be someone who won seven Tour de France titles.

I also wish Hiltzik would be more consistent in opposing government encroachments on our lives, instead of so often wanting to give our oppressors more of our tax money. Hiltzik did oppose Armstrong’s Prop. 29 tax increase, but only because he wanted the taxes for other government waste.

It’s the government itself that’s not only run by dopes, but is doped up on steroids that have ballooned government powers to monstrous proportions. And like a junkie, the government supports its habit by stealing, which the government calls “taxation.”

We need to take the steroid syringes from the government by cutting off the tax dollars — all of them. Without our money, government would have to go cold turkey: