By John Seiler

Californians still are shunning political parties more than in the past. But Republicans are losing registered voters faster than Democrats. According to the new report by Secretary of State Debra Bowen:

“The percentage of California voters registered with a political party decreased from 78.9% to 77.1% since this time two years ago, according to a California Secretary of State report published today….

“In the last two years, the percentage of voters registered with the Democratic Party decreased by 0.1% and voters registered with the Republican Party decreased by 2%. The number of registered voters with no party preference has increased by more than 259,000 during the same time frame.”

The new registration numbers for Feb. 2013 are in:  Democrats 43.93 percent; Republicans 28.94 percent. No Party Preference 20.86 percent.

The news obviously is bad for Republicans, who are trying to rebuild their party under new Chairman Jim Brulte. They’re falling fast and could soon be surpassed by the No Party Preference category.

Part of the reason might be the Top Two reform, Proposition 14 from 2010, which effectively makes parties irrelevant in the primaries (except for votes for party posts, which most people don’t care about). Top Two lets voters pick any candidate, of any party or no party, in the primary. The two winners then face off in the general election.

Top Two also was supposed to hurt third parties. Curiously, most have done better on voter registration. The American Independent Party is tops with 2.64 percent of registrations, up from 2.43 percent in 2011.

Greens were down a bit, to 0.66 percent from 0.63 percent. Libertarians were up to 0.61 percent from 0.54 percent. And the Peace and Freedom Party was the same, at 0.34 percent.

Democrats didn’t benefit

Democrats also should not be too happy. They just won a major election, with President Obama trouncing Mitt Romney in California, 60 percent to 37 percent. The party also pushed through the Proposition 30 tax increase and defeated the Proposition 32 union reform measure.

The Democratic Party also conducted well-publicized voter-registration efforts at the national and state levels. Yet that effort only keep registration from falling much; it didn’t add to the rolls.

Indeed, Brulte has promised to revamp the GOP’s lackluster efforts in that area. For example, at a speech he gave before the Orange County Republican Party in February which I attended, he lamented that the party didn’t even have an online registration form.

Unless Brulte can reverse things, what seems to be happening is that voters gradually are abandoning the Republican Party, but not shifting to the Democratic camp, instead remaining aloof as independents. It’s a general trend across the country as neither party, once in power, seems able to solve the country’s endemic problems.

Especially intractable are an economic “recovery” so slow it seems like a recession, stubbornly high unemployment, schools that never seem to get better, public-employee pension liabilities that keep rising and the $17 trillion federal budget debt.

Voters want real solutions but aren’t being given them.

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.

CalWatchdog.com Editors

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — It’s no secret that Republicans in the Golden State have been dispirited by the last two election cycles where the GOP has been relegated to virtually no power in statewide politics.  Nationally 2012 was also a lackluster election year for Republicans, yet many in the party are beginning to bounce back showing signs of optimism. The source of this energy is not due necessarily to the ongoing Conservative Political Action Conference but instead due in part to Senator Rand Paul’s recent filibuster in the United State Senate.

Watching various speeches at CPAC, I’ve found it interesting that the rhetoric from Republican elected officials and conservative leaders hasn’t changed much from last year’s election to today. And in fact, in some cases it may have even hardened. Even former presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a speech Friday at CPAC that sounded like it was something from the campaign trail rather than a forward looking message. (There have been a few exceptions, of course, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s call for a new focus for his party, similar to other speeches he’s made recently and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s chastising of the party’s establishment.)

Yet the high point for Republicans—in this moment at least— seems to be Senator Rand Paul. His filibuster demanding answers from the Obama Administration on the use of drones on United States soil illustrated the ability of one senator to lead on an issue and capture  the national dialogue, even as a member of the minority party in the United State Senate.

Staffers on Capitol Hill noted that Paul’s filibuster helped change the level of morale among Republicans in Washington, and it did so at a key moment; just before the leading national gathering of conservatives. At CPAC Sen. Paul was remarkably well received but particularly so by large numbers of young conservatives—many young conservatives who likely attended the event, at least in part, because of Paul.

Rand Paul’s recent ascent in popularity further stokes rumors of a presidential run for the Kentucky senator in 2016. Regardless of the potentiality of a bid for the White House, the GOP has a libertarian-minded Republican helping shape public discourse on issues with crossover appeal particularly hitting a cord with young people and those interested in civil liberties. That’s progress.

Even though a wholesale change in messaging by Republicans has not been evident at CPAC, there are new, powerful voices beginning to shape a movement in need some modernization. And thus an understandable bump in enthusiasm by the GOP.

By John Seiler

The two major themes of last weekend’s GOP convention were more grassroots organizing and more involvement by Latinos and other growing constituencies. Even those who not Republicans should welcome steps to make the party more competitive. Homogenized rule within a party doesn’t offer constituents many options.

A promising group highlighted at the convention was GROW Elect. Its Web site sensibly observes:

“The Republican Party has attempted a top-down approach towards breaking into the growing Latino voter market share. This attempt has failed.

“For all practical purposes there is no Republican Party in most Latino neighborhoods. No elected partisan Republican officials. No party structure. Nothing.

“There has been much talk of million dollar advertisement campaigns geared to move Latino voters. There is certainly a role for advertising, but GROW Elect takes another tact. The GROW Elect programs are focused on a bottom up approach.

“GROW Elect is a 527 political action committee that recruits, endorses, trains, and funds Latino Republican candidates for public office.”

For “top down” approach, they obviously had in mind such remote candidates as Meg Whitman, who in 2010 blew $180 million of her $1.3 billion fortune, almost all of it on TV ads, in a losing effort for governor. Her opponent, Gov. Jerry Brown, instead worked with public-employee unions to organize “the troops,” as he calls union members, and others for victory.

To use an old football cliche, it’s hard to win with just a “passing game”; you also need a “ground game.”

The Latino community is primed for a grassroots effort. Every year they form thousands of new businesses, most small, that create jobs. These businesses must run the gauntlet of state taxes and regulations. If the GOP can attract these Latinos with a welcoming message that advances smaller and more responsible government, then the party could start making a comeback.

Stifling taxes and job-killing regulations know no boundaries of race, creed or color.

Education is another winning theme if the GOP can embrace it in the right way. It isn’t Irvine where the high-school dropout rate is half of students, but Latino-majority Los Angeles Unified School District.

Here’s a YouTube that shows the promise of GROW Elect.

By Mark Stefanos

Leaders of the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County, a labor organization representing 2,200 law-enforcement officers, toured the California Republican Convention in Sacramento last weekend, attending sessions and meeting with elected officials.

They were an uncommon sight, given California labor leaders’ historic alliance with Democratic candidates and organizations. It is far too soon to see this as significant. But for a Republican Party looking to widen its umbrella after significant losses in the 2012 election cycle, the union’s overture was a reminder that California’s police and fire unions haven’t been as rigidly predictable or ideological as other public-employee unions.

Matt Clay, president of DSASD, said his delegation was received warmly. “We have felt like we’ve been included in the party,” he said. “I feel that we are on the same sheet as the Republicans on an overwhelming amount of issues.”

Union reps have ‘a tall order ahead of them’

But not all were thrilled about DSASD’s presence. Jon Fleischman, veteran GOP official and publisher of the conservative news site Flashreport.org, was skeptical of the labor group’s ability to sync with Republicans’ policy agenda.

“We have 99 percent of our issues in common with law enforcement, but these guys will have a tall order ahead of them if they think they will be able to move our party on the issue of pension reform,” Fleischman said.

Historically, public-safety unions have often walked a fine line between Republican and Democratic affiliation. Firefighters and law enforcement officers tend to be law-and-order conservatives. However, they belong to the public employee unions with the most generous pensions, and those pension systems are more likely to be underfunded at the local and state levels.

On the issue of pension reform, Clay said the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County does not face the same challenges seen in other counties.

“In San Diego, the county is in very good shape fiscally,” he said. “Our public employee retirement fund is very well funded — it’s AAA rated and it should be a model for counties across America. By 2018, it will be paid 100 percent by employee contributions.” Clay added that the fund is currently 80 percent funded and said more than 90 percent of the members of his board of directors are registered Republicans.

Public-safety union support for GOP should be ‘natural’

In San Diego, public safety unions maintain strong relationships with some individual Republican lawmakers, though not the highest-profile GOPers like defeated San Diego mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio. The Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County contributed approximately $350,000 to Republican candidates in the last two election cycles, making it among the largest single donors. It gave no money to Democratic candidates.

DSASD leadership had an official convention itinerary which included meals with state Sen. Joel Anderson, a Republican whose district is mostly in east and northeast San Diego County, and Assemblyman Rocky Chavez, R-Oceanside, as well as coffee with Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista. The union officials also were given a tour of the Capitol by Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee.

“Five of my 10 delegates are law enforcement from San Diego. The bottom line is Republicans need to find a way to reach out to groups that, on the natural, should be supporting us,” Jones said. “Let’s face it, the Republican Party in California right now is broken. I saw this as an opportunity to begin a dialogue between the party and law enforcement on areas where we can unite and areas where we can work together.”

‘Not all labor groups are created equal’

Clay echoed this message. “We hope our Republican friends can realize that not all labor groups are created equal and some labor groups are a model for working cooperatively with their employer to help make the pension system sustainable for the future. We want to end this pension issue once and for all.”

On whether labor groups like DSASD would be able to maintain permanent alliances with Republicans, Fleischman remained hesitant. “The idea that someone should retire at the age of 50 and have a public retirement until the day they die is so unsustainable that it’s tragic,” he said. “I’m fine with them being here, we agree on so many issues concerning law enforcement. I suspect the only area for which we’ll find disagreement is on appropriate compensation for their jobs.”

By John Hrabe

Jim Brulte was elected chairman of the California Republican Party in a landslide vote on Sunday. But despite winning support from 90 percent of convention delegates, the former state senator kept campaigning until the end.

“Leaders lead by example,” Brulte, who served as Republican leader in both houses of the California Legislature, told reporters shortly after the party closed its 2013 spring convention. “That’s why I campaigned right up until the votes started to be cast.”

Brulte’s chief adviser, Michael Schroeder, himself a former state party chair, told CalWatchdog.com that Brulte spent the weekend “campaigning around the clock.” At a Sacramento Hyatt that was blanketed with hundreds of “Brulte for Chairman” signs and stickers, he spoke to 10 Republican groups on Friday, followed by 11 more speeches on Saturday, before hosting a 15th-floor hospitality suite late Saturday night.

Leadership, candidates, fundraising all faulted

If he’s to orchestrate a Republican renaissance, Brulte needs his take-nothing-for-granted leadership style to rub off on legislative leaders.

“There were three Assembly seats that were lost because we got lazy,” the state’s new Republican chairman said. “Leaders lead by example, and we have to be in the precincts working, standing shoulder to shoulder with our volunteers.”

Brulte did not specify which districts he believed Republicans should have won in November. However, state Republicans have been heavily criticized for being caught off-guard with lackluster campaigning and poor fundraising in several Assembly seats during the 2012 cycle.

Perhaps the most egregious case: the 36th Assembly District in the High Desert. Republican candidate Ron Smith reportedly stopped campaigning after the primary and ultimately lost by 145 votes.

“Smith’s loss is typical of the self-inflicted wounds that have destroyed the Republican Party in California, leaving it with fewer legislators than any time in the state’s history,” wrote Tony Quinn, a political commentator and former Republican legislative staffer, in a scathing election post-mortem on Fox and Hounds. “Once he was the only Republican in the runoff, he coasted, assured of election in this ‘safe’ Republican district.”

Smith was too busy hiring staff and hanging pictures, according to the Sacramento Bee.

“I had most of my staff getting ready to be hired, my picture was up on the wall, I had my office that was assigned to me, and I already had two pieces of legislation that were going to be introduced Monday,” a perplexed Smith said in December.

In Orange County, a lack of mother’s milk of politics

If Smith’s loss epitomized lazy legislative campaigning, GOP incumbent Chris Norby’s surprising defeat in the 65th Assembly District in Orange County symbolized the party’s fundraising problems in the lower house. In a span of 18 days, late in the campaign, six Democratic county central committees contributed $292,200 to the Assembly campaign of Sharon Quirk-Silva.

Allan Hoffenblum, publisher of the California Target Book, told CalWatchdog.com that legislative Republicans struggled in 2012 due to a lack of funding.

“The caucus’ problem with the last cycle was the lack of money,” Hoffenblum said. “The one who influences the targeting is the one who raises the money.”

Hoffenblum believes that Brulte’s coronation as chairman will change the party’s fundraising and targeting.

Brulte was less critical of Republicans’ poor showing in state Senate and congressional races.

“We lost some congressional and Senate seats and frankly I’m not sure in a plus-23 election we could have won those,” he said, referring to President Obama’s 60 percent to 37 percent pasting of GOP nominee Mitt Romney in California.

More than 1,300 people attended the state party’s convention. In October, delegates will reconvene in Anaheim.

By John Seiler

Republicans continue to mull over their two defeats by President Barack Obama. And their virtual dissolution in California, which once produced presidents who won landslides: Nixon and Reagan.

One of the best GOP strategists is Morton Blackwell, whom I met in the mid-1980s when I lived in Washington, D.C. He just wrote a new analysis attacking the party’s increasing dependence on high-paid consultants, “The GOP’s consultant problem.” He doesn’t specifically mention California, but what he says applies here more than elsewhere. He writes:

“Most consultants take a 15% commission (over and above client-paid production costs and his retainer) from media vendors for all placements.”

So for the $180 million of her own money that Meg Whitman spent on her losing 2010 gubernatorial campaign, $27 million went to the consultants — plus production costs and retainers.

Now, get this. The consultant only gets paid for big media splashes on TV and radio. He gets nothing, Blackwell writes, for “precinct organization … Voter ID phone banks … voter registration drives … youth efforts … the election day process to get out the vote.” That is, the essence of politics is avoided by the GOP consultants because it doesn’t earn them a 15 percent commission.

In the 2012 election, as well as in 2010, Democrats excelled at all those things. Maybe it’s a difference of culture. Democrats, especially in California, are dominated by unions, who are used to membership drives and organizing to fight for or against ballot initiatives. They always have had strong grassroots organizations.

By contrast, Republicans have a business background. They think you offer a “product,” put up some ads for it, and people either buy it or they don’t. If they buy it, you make a profit (or win the election); if they don’t buy it, you take a loss (or lose the election) and move on to the next product offering.

Rich candidates

Blackwell specifically attacks, “The suckering of many rich candidates who are falsely led by consultants to believe they can win.”

We certainly saw that in California in 2010 with Whitman’s campaign. The eBay billionaire had no idea what she was getting into. She talked about “running the California government like a business.” But politics isn’t business. Business means offering somebody a product that the purchaser can refuse and buy something else; it’s voluntary. Government is coercion. It’s putting a gun to the heads of taxpayers, taking their money, and spending it on special interests. Elections are, as H.L. Mencken wrote, “the advance auction of stolen goods.”

The same thing happened to Arnold Schwarzenegger, who thought he could bring his Hollywood bluster and contract negotiating skills to “running the California government like a business.” His personal charisma and the recall circus of 2003 brought him to power; the real-estate boom of the mid-2000s kept him in power in 2006.

But in the end, he was rolled by the Capitol power players for spending increases that blew out the budget and led to his record $13 billion tax increases of 2009. The state economy tanked much faster than the U.S. economy and he left office in disgrace followed by personal scandal.

The consultants to his campaigns took their 15 percent.

In addition to all their other problems, Arnold’s folly took a severe toll on the California Republican Party. After losing his 2005 special election slate of reform initiatives, Arnold shifted fast to the Left, embracing AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. It’s projected to kill 1 million jobs — long after he left office, of course.

And to show how things have changed, in the seven years since then, environmental extremists no longer even refer to “global warming,” but to “climate change,” which President Obama referred to three times in his State of the Union address this week. That way, any bout of bad weather becomes an excuse to increase government control over our lives vastly more than it already does to prevent a potential ecological catastrophe.

The result was that Arnold tarnished what was left of the anti-tax, small-government “brand” of the California GOP. Some say that was a good thing because they needed to move away from “extreme” right-wing positions. But now the CA GOP has no brand at all. It’s even losing seats in the Legislature in former Republican strongholds such as Orange County.

Blackwell recommends a return to grassroots organizing and online efforts such as those that have worked for the Demcorats. Incoming CA GOP Chairman Jim Brulte is recommending something similar. In California, it’s going to take a lot more than that. But it’s a start.

By Steven Greenhut

Without fail, whenever Republicans lose elections, liberal commentators eagerly chime in with advice designed to “help” the GOP become more relevant and competitive. The advice is so common and predictable that it leaves me wondering whether the journalists who offer it simply regurgitate old columns saved on their computer. The latest dose of this comes from Thomas Elias, a liberal columnist who has been offering Californians the same liberal advice for many years.

Elias argues: “Calls for change by the Republican Party — especially its California branch — came from all sides in the days immediately following President Obama’s reelection last fall. But don’t expect that to go anywhere fast. For this is a party that values its core principles and predilections more than it does victory.” Pretending to be fair, he notes, “The GOP is now generally supportive of equal pay for women. But it has not changed much on anything else.”

He then quotes various Republicans who say they will not abandon their principles and concludes, “Expecting change, even though the GOP now has sunk below the 30 percent level among California registered voters, is as realistic as expecting a dog to quack.”

For starters, the line about equal pay for women is just a back-handed cheap shot designed to suggest that the GOP is a party of men who want to keep their women in subservience, whereas most Republicans simply opposed the discredited idea that the federal government should use the federal bureaucracy to enforce a equal-pay scheme that doesn’t account for issues such as, say, field of endeavor and the cost of leaving the workplace (i.e., women tend to take long breaks from their careers for child rearing). The goal isn’t to pick on Elias’ reasoning skills or to dwell, either, on his use of bad cliches (dogs quacking). Elias is simply the latest in a long line of writers offering advice to a party they loathe.

The bigger point: It’s always a bad idea to listen to people who hate you. Almost always, the advice-givers in these situations support gun bans, higher taxes, union give-aways, more regulations, etc.

Principles

On the surface, the Eliases of the world are arguing that losing parties need to abandon their principles so that they can win. Sure, parties need to adapt their messaging and change a little so that they can get into power, but folks who make this argument are betraying their cynical view of the world. Although I am not a Republican (I’m a Libertarian) and have a long published history of criticizing Republicans and many of their positions, I think it’s a compliment to say that “this is a party that values its core principles … more than it does victory.”

If the goal of politics is to win and given the voters anything they think they want, then what’s the point of the whole political battle? We can elect any ciphers to become elected officials. In fact, we often do. The Legislature and local councils and boards of supervisors are filled with unprincipled hacks who stick their finger in the wind and try to do whatever is popular with the special interest groups and public opinon polls.

Of course, these leftist writers never argue that Democrats should abandon their principles when they lose, which suggests that their stated argument isn’t for real. Elias quotes conservative Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz correctly calling for the GOP to do a better job reaching out to Latino voters, but he somehow doesn’t call for Texas Democrats to abandon their commitment to that party’s big-government principles in the wake of the Cruz victory.

The real argument from Elias and others who are hostile to the GOP’s generally stated philosophy is that there should be no organized opposition to the current program of the state’s Democratic Party.

There’s an entire cottage industry out there that blames the GOP for just about everything here in California. I agree that the Republican Party needs to change. In my coverage of it in Orange County and at the state level, I’ve seen a party run by second-rate politicians who already are doing what Elias suggests they ought to do: trying to give voters what they want rather than offer a detailed alternative vision of how the government ought to operate. When they take principled stands, they often do so on the wrong issues (i.e., social issues, immigration, law and order, etc.). When opportunity knocks — i.e., efforts to end property-rights-destroying redevelopment agencies — Republicans often pick the wrong side of the issue.

Sure the GOP needs to change, but it doesn’t need to abandon principled ideas. If the Republicans simply become like the Democrats, then the state will be in an even bigger mess because no one will be reminding legislators that there is an alternative to giving away the Treasury to the public-sector unions, increasing taxes and treating businesses like they are evil.

Libertarian case

In my view, the GOP needs to make a more consistent libertarian case and live up to its state principles by genuinely embracing a consistent philosophy of limited government. In a state that is as socially liberal as California, a more libertarian focus will help it package the sound fiscal ideas that remain at the foundation of the party’s belief system.

But let’s not forget the obvious point leftists would ignore: The Democratic Party has long been dominant in California. Democratic officials are far more culpable than Republicans for the state’s fiscal mess. The Democrats control every state constitutional office and have gained more than two-thirds majority control of both houses of the Legislature. The GOP has no real power base and even conservative bastions such as Orange County are tilting in a Democratic direction. The Democrats own the government.

Yet the state has consistently high deficits. The state’s tax and regulatory climate is a nightmare. Businesses are fleeing, poverty outside of the wealthy coastal enclaves is worsening. California no longer is the land of opportunity. Business owners wisely expand their operations in other states. A state that was once a land of opportunity where people came from all over the country and all over the world is now a place that people leave to pursue opportunities elsewhere.

Is that the GOP’s fault? Partially so, perhaps, but come on.

Why don’t these columnists write about how the Democratic Party should change?

You know the answer.

Commentary

Dec. 20, 2012

By B. Wayne Hughes Jr.

The Republican Party lost the presidential election of 2012. Here in California, my own state doubled down on big government by adding a novel surcharge to its already high 11.3 percent income tax rate and ignored spending cuts and entitlement reforms needed to modify a deficit-driven state budget.

The California state Legislature now is firmly in the hands of a Democratic supermajority.  Thus, Republicans are practically irrelevant.

As I sit here and listen to the talking heads and the remaining leaders of the failed GOP bid across the country, I find myself skeptical of their analysis and leadership. What may have once worked is now outdated.  Yet, obsolete tactics were only part of the problem.

Fundamentally, the Republican Party lacked a coherent strategy.  More importantly, there was no captivating message to inspire the American electorate to take notice and change its government, despite a target-rich environment from which one could starkly contrast a message of urgency and course correction against our moribund present.

Where are the statesmen in our present age?  Who casts a vision for all the people?  We must not delude ourselves that we are returning to the days of “peace and prosperity,” when in the New Normal we are unlikely to have either.  Ultimately, we are in danger of being entirely unrelated to the world in which we live.

How can we offer to young men and women “membership” and “leadership” in our Republican Party when we offer them no knowledge of where we have been, and no vision of where we are going?

Rule of law

So few young people today understand that the rule of law is the precondition of an ordered society in which free men and women act in liberty.  It is no overstatement to say that, without the rule of law, we cannot have liberty, and that this is a truth, not merely a theory.  In the absence of this truth, all we are left with is power. We see that in the perversion of our judiciary, which increasingly legislates, rather than interprets law; in our legislative branch which, unchecked, pursues remedies far beyond what the framers and the U.S. Constitution would allow; and in our executive branch, where the presidency seems imperial.

Anyone who can look the American public in the eye and say we are passing along a better country to our children than the one that we received is lying.  We should be ashamed of ourselves. The other side speaks of equality of outcome as if it were the endgame.

But government is a referee, not an enforcer of “fairness” as subjectively redefined by each session of Congress.  No one is asking the people to stop and think about who the arbiters of equality are going to be; what standard they’re going to be using; and is that standard to be etched in stone or, as is the case and so far, written on cigarette paper. I find that, when leaders talk about progress, it is only to avoid talking about their policy, in the context of what is good and right.

I hate forensic analysis. I know the Republican Party lost. And in many ways the outcome was deserved. Some of our candidates revealed that they were out of touch with reality. And I wonder if some of them in fact are detached from the real world.

What keeps me committed to the conservative movement are the virtues it has always stood for.  In the classic fusion of libertarian and traditional conservatism, we recognize that men and women cannot be virtuous unless they are free to pursue virtue.

We must fight the temptation to quit or capitulate, to conclude that it’s no use fighting. The magnitude of our peril directly correlates to the years of complacent leadership.  Furthermore, the power of the opposition to course correction is directly related to the size that correction signifies.

California matters, our country matters, life matters. You matter.  Just as each individual is endowed with a purpose, so too can each individual be a part of the movement to recapture the American dream.

There is hope.

B. Wayne Hughes Jr. is a California businessman and philanthropist.

JAN. 8, 2012

By JOHN HRABE

California’s 2012 redistricting already is shaking up state and even federal politics. The candidates’ dogfight for the new 26th congressional district could determine whether Democrats or Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives after the November election — or at least the degree of Republican control.

Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, announced on Saturday that he’ll retire from Congress. He currently represents the old 24th Congressional District, which was drawn after the 2000 U.S. Census.

Gallegly would have had to run an uphill challenge against Rep. Buck McKeon in the new 25th District, based on the 2010 U.S. Census. McKeon has been in Congress since 1993 and is chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee.

Gallegly’s other option was a tough general election fight in the 26^th Congressional district. The new Ventura County-based district, which includes Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Moorpark and Camarillo, gives Democrats a slight voter-registration advantage.

However, the district has conservative tendencies and voted in favor of Proposition 8, California’s anti-gay marriage initiative. According to Redistricting Partners’ analysis of the district, it went handily to Obama in 2008 and slightly favored Whitman in 2010.

Gallegly’s retirement creates the opportunity for several county politicians to make their moves on the long-coveted seat. The Democratic side already features five announced candidates: Ventura County Supervisor Steve Bennett, Moorpark Councilman David Pollock, community activist Zeke Ruelas, businessman David Cruz Thayne and Oxnard Harbor District board member Jess Herrera.

On the Republican side, state Senator Tony Strickland, R-Santa Barbara, could be challenged by County Supervisor Linda Parks, a slow-growth environmental activist.

What to Watch for in CD 26

10. State Senator Tony Strickland Will Clear the Republican Field

Strickland will have the support of the Republican establishment, both in the county and on Capitol Hill. Ventura County’s field of top-tier Republican candidates has winnowed in the past five years. Bob Brooks, a popular Republican county sheriff and close Gallegly friend, passed on the chance to take over the seat in 2006, when Gallegly first flirted with retirement. Tom McClintock, another longtime county Republican stalwart, couldn’t wait for Gallegly’s retirement and moved to a Northern California congressional seat in 2008.

Other than Strickland, there’s only one Republican elected official in Ventura County with grassroots support, name ID and a strong fundraising prowess: County Supervisor Peter Foy. He told me Saturday night that he’s supporting Strickland. It’s perhaps Strickland’s most important local endorsement because it clears Strickland’s right flank.

Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks, a registered Republican, won’t gain any traction with any of the county’s Republican establishment if she decides to enter the race. Ventura County Republican Chairman Mike Osborn, a close Strickland ally, led the county party’s independent expenditure campaign against Parks in 2010. Republican women proved to be the key voter demographic in that race. Expect the same in this match-up between Tony Strickland and Parks. If Parks is able to make the runoff, Republican women will be the most crucial voting bloc.

On Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., expect House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, to quickly lock down key endorsements and financial support for Strickland. The Strickland-McCarthy friendship dates back to McCarthy’s tenure as Assembly Republican leader.

Strickland served as an important member of McCarthy’s inner circle in Sacramento, and he’ll want to add Strickland as a loyal member of his team in Washington. (Fun fact: The pair overcame a one-time “young Republican” feud. McCarthy came up through the Bill Thomas machine; Strickland the more conservative crowd. The split was so bad it led to the creation of two separate young Republican organizations.)

9. Left-Wing Fight: Latino Democrat vs. Environmentalist Liberal

The CD 26 race could turn into a nasty fight between a Latino Democrat and a progressive environmentalist. Ruelas and Herrera will fight to be the consensus Latino candidate, while Bennett and Parks jockey to be the environmentalist candidate. (Yes, even though Parks is a registered Republican.) One quarter of the voting age population is Latino. Unless another Latino candidate enters the race, Herrera, a five-term commissioner on the Oxnard Harbor District, likely has the advantage over Ruelas.

The environmentalist battle might be avoided altogether. Bennett and Parks share the same base of anti-growth supporters. Both have served for decades as leaders in the SOAR movement (Save Open-Space and Agricultural Resource). SOAR opposes property rights in favor of protecting obscure wildlife.

In late December, the Ventura County Star reported that Bennett was having second thoughts about the race. If Bennett drops out, he’ll likely support Parks, despite her Republican registration. Bennett has endorsed Parks in the past and even contributed money to her supervisorial campaigns. Expect environmentalists to unite early in an “anyone but Strickland” coalition.

8. Regional Split: West County (Oxnard) vs. East County (Thousand Oaks)

Ventura County’s natural geographic divide is the Conejo Grade.  East County includes Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park and Moorpark. It’s wealthier, more Republican and increasingly moderate.

West County, which includes Port Hueneme, Oxnard and Ventura, is the major source of Democratic votes, due to its working class and primarily Latino population.

The first signs of a geographic split will be internally, between the environmentalists Bennett and Parks. Bennett represents West County; Parks East County. Parks should have the edge because she’ll have support from a broad base of community leaders in the East, while some of Bennett’s Democratic support will go to the Latino consensus candidate. Prior to her election to the county board, Parks served as a member of the Thousand Oaks City Council. Assuming the environmentalist crowd consolidates behind Parks, there’ll still be a geographic split with the Latino candidate from Oxnard.

Strickland has represented all of these areas in either the state Assembly or Senate, with most of his support coming from Camarillo, Moorpark and Thousand Oaks.

7. The Heretofore Unknown Wealthy Republican Who Wants to be Called “Congressman”

Strickland’s biggest competitor for traditional Republican votes could come from the heretofore unknown wealthy Republican who wants to be called “congressman.”

In 2006 and 2008, wealthy attorney and businessman Michael Tenenbaum ran to replace Gallegly. He seized on Gallegly’s “will-he-or-won’t-he” moment to fill that role.

Another wealthy Republican could follow the Tenenbaum model. Gallegly has held the seat for 24 years, so you can expect a few wealthy businessmen to think twice before passing on their chance at a congressional seat.

6. Big Labor Will Decide Who Makes the Runoff

Big Labor will play heavily in this race, but it’s unclear whom they’ll support. Both Parks and Bennett have strong, pro-union records on the Board of Supervisors. Herrera and Ruelas are former and current longshoremen.

Labor could stay out of the primary and keep its powder dry for a general election fight against Strickland. Or, it could decide to get behind the potentially stronger candidate, Parks.  There’s even the possibility that a few unions might consider supporting Strickland.

Whomever Big Labor gets behind will be the candidate to make the runoff.

5. Strickland’s  Pre-Primary GOP Endorsement Undermined by … Tony Strickland

Parks’s Republican registration, despite being in name only, complicates Strickland’s chances for a pre-primary endorsement from the California Republican Party. A party endorsement could provide crucial financial support. During last year’s internal party endorsement debate, party kingpins Jon Fleischman and Mike Schroeder proposed an easy pre-primary endorsement process that would favor conservative candidates. Their plan was defeated in favor of a complicated local convention system.

Under the current party rules, two-thirds of the county central committee members in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties must approve a pre-primary endorsement. Then, two-thirds of the California Republican Party Board of Directors must authorize the endorsement.

It’s a complicated but feasible hurdle for Strickland to overcome. Of course, Strickland has no one to blame but himself. He provided critical support for the more complicated plan. It was the brainchild of none other than McCarthy. The question will be if fringe, anti-Strickland Republicans can marshal enough votes to block an endorsement at the local level.

4. Outside Groups Will Play Heavily in the Race

Environmental groups, labor unions, Indian tribes and business interests will all play in this congressional race. Strickland, a former president of the California chapter of the influential Club for Growth, can expect major support from anti-tax, pro-growth advocates.

Parks is a quintessential RINO — Republican in Name Only. She’ll ignite the ire of anti-tax, anti-union activists throughout the country. Think Dede Scozzafava, the New York Republican politician just appointed to a post by liberal Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo; but Parks sports a record of quashing property rights to save squirrels. The Sierra Club and state public employee unions will play in the race in favor of the consensus liberal candidate.

3. The Most Expensive Congressional Race in California History

If you’re a Republican donor in California, chances are you’ve already received a fundraising pitch from Strickland. It’s been 24 hours since Gallegly announced his retirement. That’s enough time for Strickland to contact several hundred donors.

One of the best fundraisers in the state, I’d look for Strickland to post a massive fundraising number at the end of the first reporting period. (Yes, I just raised expectations.) The combination of Strickland’s fundraising and outside groups will make the 26^th congressional district one of the most expensive races in California history.

2. Linda Parks Will Re-Register as a Democrat

A potential game changer in this race is when Parks re-registers as a Democrat. In a debate, I’d ask Parks to name the last Republican presidential candidate she has supported. (Not that anyone can blame her for abandoning the anti-freedom Sen. John McCain.)

If Parks re-registered as a Democrat, she’d have the formal support of her Democratic friends and allies. Check Parks’s past endorsement record and you’ll find a “Who’s Who” of Democratic activists. It’d be so much easier for her to campaign as a Democrat instead of as a moderate Republican.

If Parks fails to make the runoff, look for her to endorse the Latino Democrat, regardless of her party registration.

1. The Race Will Remain Undecided for Days, Possibly Weeks

Get the lawyers ready for a heated ballot review process in November. It is easier to list the races that “Landslide Tony” has won easily than identify the races he’s barely squeaked out. Most of his victories have been decided weeks after Election Day.

The only race Strickland has won by a comfortable margin was his final re-election to the State Assembly in 2002. In 1998 and 2000, Strickland beat schoolteacher Roz McGrath by a hair. The 2008 state Senate race against former Assemblywoman Hannah Beth Jackson took weeks of ballot checking before a winner was declared.

And then there’ll be the rematch for District 26 in 2014.

Bonus Prediction: Epic Ground War Between Strickland and Parks

The best ground campaign activists in California Republican politics will reunite to run the ground campaign in this race. Strickland has trained a network of activists and should be expected to reinstitute his flop-house walk program. That’s where poor college students are convinced to spend day and night walking for the cause. Look for the best political operatives in conservative politics to forgo their lucrative state salaries and temporarily take LWOP — leave without pay — to support Strickland’s bid.

The Strickland machine will face its toughest test yet in Parks’s environmental operation. Every activist who has chained himself to a tree to save the spotted owl will mobilize to support Parks. She is a serious and credible candidate with high name ID. If she doesn’t re-register as a Democrat, this may be the first and only race to feature a Republican versus Republican general election match-up.

(Full disclosure: The author previously worked for Tony Strickland, a candidate for District 26.)