Editor’s Note: This story was originally published on July 19.

Republicans in the state Legislature are thought to have a challenging election cycle this year. The outcome in November will determine whether the GOP has enough seats in the state Assembly and state Senate to maintain relevance in legislative matters.

Many factors are contributing to the angst, not the least of which is that Donald Trump as the GOP nominee is a wild card. No one knows yet how the reality T.V. star and real estate tycoon will affect down-ticket races — although Democrats are anticipating it will drag down GOP candidates. 

Regardless of the top of the ticket, this year looks to be tough for Republicans — who are largely hoping to just hold seats — as presidential election turnouts are generally more favorable to Democrats, when the electorate becomes more diverse. 

Republicans need to keep Democrats from achieving a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and Senate to have a meaningful impact on state lawmaking. Dipping below that line would mean losing their ability to weigh in on tax increases, gubernatorial veto overrides and legislatively-referred constitutional amendments — their last remaining points of legislative leverage.

To stay above a superminority, Republicans can afford to lose only one seat in the Assembly while Senate Republicans can’t afford to lose any.

Adding intrigue is the fact that it’s not just a war between the parties. The relatively new primary system where the top two candidates advance from the primary to the general election regardless of party has pitted some Democrats against each other, largely playing out proxy wars from outside interests. Of course in some races, a few candidates are termed-out of one chamber and aren’t ready to go home just yet.

Here are some of the top races to watch:

In the fight of their lives 

Catharine Baker, an East Bay Area Republican assemblywoman, led the primary 53.2 percent to 46.8 percent over Democrat Cheryl Cook-Kallio, a former Pleasanton City Council member. Baker is a the only Bay Area Republican in the legislature, so her seat is important both functionally and symbolically. 

Baker narrowly won the open seat in 2014 by about three points, and this time should be close too. Democrats in the district have a 10 percent registration advantage, with 24 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

In one of several rematches, Republican Assemblyman David Hadley faces Democrat Al Muratsuchi, whom Hadley booted from office in 2014 by only 706 votes — or about 0.5 percentage points — in this Los Angeles south bay district.

In the June primary, Hadley received only 44.6 percent of the vote, with Muratsuchi and another Democrat splitting the majority. Democrats in the district enjoy a nine percentage point registration advantage, with 22 percent of voters claiming no party preference. Winning this seat was a major coup for the GOP in 2014, and retaining it would be as well.

Key holds

In the Antelope Valley, Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey faces a strong challenge from the man he unseated in 2014, Democrat Steve Fox (who used to be a Republican). In 2014, Lackey destroyed Fox by 20 percentage points. But in the June primary, Lackey advanced with only 48.2 percent of the vote; three Democrats split the rest. Democrats have a six percentage point registration advantage with 19 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

In the north Inland Empire, first-term Republican Assemblyman Marc Steinorth of Rancho Cucamonga finished second of two candidates in the primary behind Democrat Abigail Medina, a San Bernardino City Unified School District board member, trailing by three percentage points. Democrats have a one percentage point registration advantage with 22 percent of voters claiming no party preference.

And in the south Inland Empire, Republican Assemblyman Eric Linder — who is surprisingly supported by the SEIU, a formidable union — got only 45.6 percent of the vote in the primary with the rest split between two Democrats. In the general, Linder faces Democrat Sabrina Cervantes, the district director for Assemblyman Jose Medina. Democrats have a slight, two percentage point registration advantage with 21 percent of voters claiming no party preference.

Former Republican Senate Leader Bob Huff is termed out and Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang is hoping to fill Huff’s seat on the other side of the rotunda. Chang faces Democrat Josh Newman — a political neophyte who runs a non-profit aimed at helping veterans find employment — in this Orange County race.

Despite superior name recognition, Chang — the only Republican in the primary — drew 44 percent, while Newman and another Democrat nearly evenly split the majority. Republicans have a one percentage point registration advantage with 24 percent of voters declining to state a party preference.

Another rematch

Republican Assemblywoman Young Kim faces the woman she knocked off in 2014, Democrat Sharon Quirk-Silva, in this Orange County district.

Last cycle, Kim won by 10 percentage points. But in June, Quirk-Silva led the primary by 8.6 percentage points. And Democrats have a four percentage point registration advantage, with 23 percent of voters claiming no party preference.  

Competitive by chance

The race to replace the late Sen. Sharon Runner — the Republican incumbent from Lancaster — is wide open. Runner passed away in July, but had previously decided against running for re-election for health reasons (her second such decision). Runner won the seat in 2015 in a special election after Steve Knight won a Congressional seat. 

Republican Assemblyman Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita came in first in the primary with 46.7 percent of the vote over Johnathon Levar Ervin, an engineer and Air Force reservist, who drew 33.7 percent of the vote. Among four candidates, the results were almost evenly split with a slight edge to the Republicans, but voter registration in the district is closely split as well. Democrats have a two percentage point registration advantage with 21 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

Republicans best shot to pickup

What would have otherwise been considered a noncompetitive Senate election to replace termed-out Democrat Carol Liu became competitive when longtime Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich threw his hat in the ring.

Antonovich brings strong name recognition and a vast fundraising network from his more than 40 years in elected office, but he has a tough path forward having only won 39.5 percent of the vote in the primary. The rest of the vote was split among Democratic candidates, with former Assemblyman Anthony Portantino coming in second. Democrats have a 14 percentage point registration advantage with 24 percent of voters declining to state party preference. 

Dems v. Dems and the proxy wars

While this Silicon Valley election featuring two Democrats won’t affect whether or not there’s a supermajority, it may help fortify a group of business-friendly moderates. Incumbent Senator Jim Beall, of the liberal environmentalist ilk, is facing the more business-friendly Nora Campos, who is termed out of the Assembly.

This race is actually one of a few proxy wars between Big Environment vs. Big Oil, which have both spent considerable money in the race. Beall was a hair away from a majority of the vote in the primary.

So far Campos has stuck to the narrative that both Beall and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Beall supporter, have bullied her. Campos said de Leon tried to dissuade her from running (party leaders generally dislike having to spend money and energy protecting incumbents from members of their own party). And Campos said Beall attacked her husband through a third party — as they say, it’s complicated.

A moderate Democrat is under fire in the Inland Empire, as incumbent Cheryl Brown faces attorney Eloise Reyes in this competitive Assembly district. Environmentalists and unions dislike Brown and have already spent big money opposing her through the primary, while Big Oil and charter schools have spent more than a half million dollars in support of Brown.

But surprisingly, word leaked that Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon — a powerful environmentalist — would be endorsing Brown. It’s unclear if this will have any effect on the race. 

In the primary, Brown received 44.1 percent of the vote to Reyes’ 35.6 percent. The Republican challenger received 20 percent of the vote, and how that’s divvied up could decide the race.

With a little luck at the ballot box, Republicans in the Legislature are set to expand on their increasingly diverse delegation, a far cry from the “Party of Old White Men” it’s been thought of by some for years.

And while Republicans have the primary goal of holding the relatively few seats in the Legislature they already have, increased diversity would show a modernizing party that could expand is electoral appeal. 

“Our party does not engage in the identity politics of the left, but we have placed an emphasis on recruiting and supporting the best candidates for every district,” said CAGOP Vice Chairwoman Harmeet Dhillon. “In our culturally rich state, that candidate is often someone with a minority background.”

Diverse candidates

In a district that includes much of Bakersfield, termed-out Republican Shannon Grove appears set to be replaced by Vince Fong, of Chinese descent. Fong won the primary with 60.8 percent of the vote in the largely Republican district.

Dante Acosta is poised to replace termed-out Republican Scott Wilk in a Republican-leaning district that includes Simi Valley and much of north Los Angeles County.

Acosta, of Mexican descent, came in second in the primary behind Democrat Christy Smith, who won 44.8 percent to 35.9 percent. However, Acosta split a majority of votes among two other Republican candidates.

In a largely Republican Orange County district, termed-out Don Wagner may be replaced by Harry Sidhu, who came to the United States in 1974 from India. Sidhu split a 67 percent majority of the vote among six Republicans and came in second behind the lone Democrat.

Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang, who was born in Taiwan, is running to replace Bob Huff, the only termed-out Senate Republican, in a competitive district that straddles Orange and Los Angeles counties. Chang faces longer odds than the others, as she advanced to the general with two Democratic candidates splitting a 55 percent majority of the vote.

If Chang does win, she’d increase diversity in the Senate Republican caucus. And filling her seat in the Assembly could be Philip Chen, of Chinese descent. Chen, like Acosta and Sidhu, was the second-place finisher in the primary behind a Democrat, splitting the vote with four Republicans in the Republican-leaning district.

“As an immigrant myself, I am proud to see more and more Republican candidates that other Californians with diverse backgrounds can identify with when they visit the polls,” said Dhillon, who was born in India. “This trend increases voter turnout and enthusiasm.”

Does it even matter?

California is a huge state, filled with diverse pockets. It’s often said that as the demographics of the state changed, the Republican Party failed to keep up.

Since becoming CAGOP chairman in 2013, Jim Brulte (along with Dhillon and other party leaders) has tried to change that trend in candidate recruitment. As he said in 2015: “In a neighborhood election, the candidate who most looks like, sounds like, has the shared values and shared experiences of the majority of the people in the neighborhood tends to win.”

In 2014, California Republicans sent a relatively large delegation of women to the Legislature, with a large Asian bloc that included Chang. In 2016, they’ll aim to expand on that with Acosta, Chen, Sidhu, Fong and Chang. 

“Under the leadership of Jim Brulte, California Republicans have done yeoman work in recruiting candidates who look like their constituents,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “It’s a smart move: monochrome does not fit California, and in the long run, this strategy could help the party rebuild its strength.”

But, Pitney cautioned, the effect Trump — the presumptive nominee who has a tendency to say things sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly viewed as racist — will have at the top of the GOP ticket is unclear.

“The problem is that people tend to see political parties through the prism of presidential candidates,” Pitney said. “Trump could ruin much of California GOP’s progress.”

Assembly Bill 2, authored by Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, would give local governments the power to create new entities that would have the same legal authority as redevelopment agencies. These new Community Revitalization Investment Authorities would have the power to issue bonds, award sweetheart deals to businesses and “acquire and transfer property subject to eminent domain,” according to the legislative analysis of the bill.

Property rights advocates warn that the bill’s language contains no restrictions on eminent domain and could resurrect the abuses made possible by the Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo decision.

“It brings back the right of governments to exercise eminent domain against some private parties in order to resell their property to other private parties,” cautioned Howard Ahmanson, Jr., a property rights advocate and founder of Fieldstead and Company. “Only new and wealthy suburbs would be potentially spared from ‘redevelopment,’ the lower middle class and poor would not.”

12 Assembly Republicans back redevelopment, unrestricted eminent domain

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that government agencies have the power to seize property for economic development. The decision was widely criticized across the political spectrum and inspired states to pass tougher laws limiting governments’ eminent domain powers. Here in California, the momentum for property rights reached its zenith in 2011, when Gov. Jerry Brown pushed through a plan to end redevelopment as part of his plan to balance the state budget.

Now a decade since Kelo, the horror stories of small businesses being seized to make way for strip malls and condo complexes have faded from public memory. During the state Assembly’s floor debate on the bill, not a single member – Republican or Democrat – spoke in opposition to the bill, which passed by a 63-13 vote.

Surprisingly, a dozen Assembly Republican lawmakers, including Assembly GOP leader Kristin Olsen, joined the Democratic majority in backing the bill. Olsen’s office refused to comment on the bill or explain how the bill fit with the Republican Caucus’ position on property rights. One GOP lawmaker defended her vote by arguing that redevelopment agencies are an important tool for economic development.

“I ran for Assembly to help create jobs,” said Assemblywoman Young Kim, R-Fullerton. “RDAs give us another tool to do just that while turning around poor and disadvantaged areas.”

Redevelopment focused in areas with high unemployment, crime

Under the bill, a Community Revitalization Investment Authority could be created by a city, county or special district if certain conditions are met. The first requirement is that the area have an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide median. Additionally, three of the following four conditions must be met:

• Unemployment that is at least 3 percent higher than the statewide median unemployment rate;
• A crime rate that is 5 percet higher than the statewide median crime rate;
• Deteriorated or inadequate infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, water supply, sewer treatment or processing, and parks;
• Deteriorated commercial or residential structures.

“It’s redevelopment with a kinder, gentler twist,” explains Steven Greenhut, the state’s foremost expert on eminent domain and author of the book, Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain. “If AB2 passes, agencies will take property by eminent domain and use public dollars to fund private projects. Localities will run up debt without a vote of the public. As always, the plans of residents will give way to the edicts of the planners.”

There’s overwhelming evidence that redevelopment agencies harm small businesses, while failing in their mission to stimulate economies. That’s most evident in the landmark Kelo case, where a Connecticut town offered a corporate welfare package to the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Inc.

“While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other ‘desirable’ elements,” the Wall Street Journal observed in 2009. “Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.”

Those abuses extended to California’s application of redevelopment, property rights advocates say.

“California has rightly earned the reputation as one of the nation’s largest abusers of eminent domain, given that Redevelopment Agencies routinely abused their power of eminent domain to seize homes, small businesses and places of worship for private development,” wrote the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, the state’s leading property rights group. “Time and time again, these obscure agencies diverted taxpayer dollars from core government programs to finance professional sports arenas, luxury hotels, golf courses and strip malls.”

Alejo: Bill needed to help disadvantaged communities

Nevertheless, supporters of AB2 say that blighted areas are a problem that demand government action.

“There are many areas in the state where the streets are broken and old water and sewer pipes lurk below,” Alejo said of his legislation. “In these areas, businesses do not open up shop. This leads to high unemployment, high crime rates and a hopeless community. This bill will work to tackle issues facing our state’s most disadvantaged communities.”

Several GOP lawmakers that opposed the bill dispute Alejo’s arguments.

“Private property rights are a foundational principle declared by our founding fathers,” said Asm. Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, who opposed the bill. “Eminent domain is used by the government to trample on private property rights and as an individual property owner, there are legal protections in place to prevent government encroachment.”

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, one of only 13 members to oppose the bill, said that she understands her colleagues interest in redevelopment, but can’t back legislation that undermines property rights.

“Stripping away property rights in the name of economic development isn’t the answer,” said Melendez, a former member of the Lake Elsinore City Council. “I think it has become more fashionable to allow the government to take over instead of allowing the free market to do so.”

Assemblyman Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, introduced Assembly Bill 6, which would cancel outstanding bond funds approved by Proposition 1A, a 2008 voter-approved initiative to fund the state’s high-speed rail project with $9 billion in bonds. In its place, voters would be asked to spend the remaining funds on constructing and modernizing dilapidated school facilities throughout the state.

“Don’t get me wrong, I love trains and would be happy to be able to take one from Los Angeles to San Francisco for ‘dinner and a show’ and back,” Wilk wrote in a recent piece at the Los Angeles Daily News, “but not at the expense of the people of California.”

Before allocating up to  $8 billion for school construction, AB6 first would first pay off the outstanding debts incurred for the state’s high-speed rail project. The bill requires two-thirds approval of the state Legislature and a majority approval of voters.

“Our students deserve to have well-maintained facilities and it is irresponsible to continue prioritizing the crazy train over our schools,” Wilk said, echoing a favorite phrase coined by GOP gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari, who on Nov. 4 lost to Gov. Jerry Brown. “The high-speed rail boondoggle has been a proven failure and it’s time we spend taxpayer dollars in a responsible way.”

State Allocation Board: California needs as much as $12 billion for schools

Wilk points to a Jan. 2014 report by the State Allocation Board that contends California needs to devote as much as $12 billion toward new school construction and another $5 billion to modernization of existing facilities. The obscure board, which includes representatives from the governor’s office and the Legislature, couldn’t definitively peg the total cost of school modernization.  Other State Allocation Board estimates put the figure between $5.9 billion and $6.6 billion.

“There is demand for new construction and modernization funding,” the State Allocation Board School Facility Program Review Subcommittee concluded earlier this year. “The Subcommittee did not come to a consensus on a total dollar amount needed for future school facilities or the exact structure of a future bond.”

The committee struggled to identify the state’s total school modernization costs, in part, because “California does not track the number of schools and classrooms available for use. …

“Currently, data on the number of school sites and classrooms and/or the age of the facilities in the State is unknown.”

Wilk: Put schools before bullet train

How likely is Wilk’s idea to gain traction in Sacramento? Brown remained a steadfast supporter of the project during his reelection campaign. However, support is wavering among other Democratic leaders and state lawmakers. Wilk’s proposal to transfer rail funds to schools could provide liberal Democrats a reason to join a burgeoning right-left alliance against the state’s rail project.

CalWatchdog.com contributor Chris Reed, who has reported extensively on the problems with California’s high-speed rail project, noted that one of the  biggest critics has been Kevin Drum, a reporter for the liberal Mother Jones magazine.

Drum has questioned the ridership assumptions produced by New York-based Parsons Brinkerhoff, which claimed “the high-speed rail system could carry 116 million passengers a year, based on running trains with 1,000 seats both north and south every five minutes, 19 hours a day and 365 days a year.” Drum also pointed out the potential conflict of interest: Parsons Brinkerhoff  helped fund the initiative and has a stake in the outcome.

Flaws in California’s use of school facilities

Wilk’s idea is likely to gain support among conservatives and taxpayer groups, who view the state’s high-speed rail project as an irresponsible boondoggle that enriches private companies at public expense. Since 1998, state voters have approved $35 billion in school construction and modernization bonds. The most recent state bond package, $5 billion approved in 2006, has nearly been exhausted, with just $187.3 million remaining for school construction and $142.4 million left for seismic repair.

California’s school facility repair program, much like the state’s high-speed rail project, has faced similar questions about flawed oversight and accountability. School bond funds have been spent to modernize portable school buildings, despite their shorter life spans.

“Some concerns about the current program included whether a portable can be truly modernized, as well as the concern that was also expressed in the new construction section that 30 year funds were being spent on buildings that would not have a 30 year life span,” the State Allocation Board found in its Jan. 2014 report.

Any attempt to shift the high-speed rail bonds to schools would different state political functions to the head of the class. Brown has made the rail project his baby, but also is working on reforming school finances.

The teachers’ unions are strong Brown allies. But in addition to the need for school construction and repairs, the California State Teachers Retirement System needs $4.5 billion a year from the general fund to remain solvent.

With such financial problems ahead on the train tracks, high-speed rail may be a ready candidate for the junk yard.

By JOHN HRABE

“If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog,” goes an old adage.

Just getting to Washington will be a test of friendship for the candidates in the dogfight over California’s new, redistricted 26th District in the U.S. House of Representatives. One of the country’s hottest congressional races kicked off when one friend backed down from a fight against another friend. Rep. Elton Gallegly, R- Simi Valley, announced his retirement instead of challenging his GOP colleague, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Santa Clarita.

State Senator Tony Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks, has long coveted Gallegly’s congressional seat. (Strickland is pictured in the right of the nearby picture; to his left is Scott Wilk.)

Strickland delayed his campaign announcement a few days, out of deference to his friend, Gallegly. “Right now, I’d just like to focus on Elton and let him have his day,” Strickland said when first asked about the open seat.

Ventura County’s gossip mill has another version of the story. “LOL since they famously loathe each other,” tweeted Democratic consultant and gossip king, Jason Kinney. Gallegly and Strickland are more like “frenemies.” They’ve engaged in proxy battles for control of the Ventura County Republican Central Committee for more than a decade.

In 2006, Gallegly tried to handpick his successor and shatter Strickland’s congressional dreams. Ironically, that move formed the basis for a new friendship. Gallegly’s on-again, off-again re-election campaign resulted in a primary challenge from Michael Tenenbaum, a Ventura County attorney. Gallegly wanted a unified local party in his corner. Strickland didn’t want a political newcomer jumping the line. So, Strickland united the party behind Gallegly because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

‘You’ve Got a Friend in Me’

While Strickland and Gallegly moved past their rivalry, the 26th House race has turned two lifelong pals into fair-weather friends. One of Strickland’s “good friends” is Santa Clarita Community College Trustee Scott Wilk. They became fast friends years ago, while working as aides to conservative superstar Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Granite Bay. Over the years, the friendship has blended the personal with the political.

In 2008, Wilk dispatched his son, Scott Wilk, Jr., to work on Strickland’s contentious California Senate campaign. “Lil’ Wilk” waved Strickland campaign signs in the morning, walked door-to-door during the day, and stuffed envelopes at night.  Strickland’s victory also gave Wilk Jr. the chance to learn the family business as an aide in Strickland’s legislative office.

Unsurprisingly, when Wilk expressed interest early last year in the 38th State Assembly seat, Strickland was among the first people to tell Wilk, “You’ve got a friend in me.”

“I can’t think of a better battle-tested conservative candidate than Scott Wilk,” Strickland proclaimed in the campaign’s first press release, long before Gallegly’s retirement. “That’s why I support Scott Wilk for Assembly.”

The Friendship Paradox

Strickland’s new congressional campaign, however, made Wilk the unwitting victim of the friendship paradox. That’s the theory that “most people have fewer friends than their friends have.”

Wilk counted Strickland among his friends, which means, according to the friendship paradox, Strickland has more friends than Wilk. Strickland’s friend list includes House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield. McCarthy and Strickland are BFFs, best friends forever, after serving together in the State Assembly. McCarthy, sticking with the friendship paradox, has more Facebook friends than Strickland, as the nearby chart shows.

One of McCarthy’s many friends is Rep. McKeon. McKeon objected to Strickland’s endorsement of Wilk for State Assembly because of another friendship. McKeon’s wife, Patricia, a sort of friend with benefits, is running for the same Assembly seat as Wilk. Blogger Dave Bossert reported, “Strickland was put under intense political pressure from Republicans” to drop Wilk.

You see, McKeon has friends in high places, the GOP congressional caucus. “A lot of folks in the delegation feel uncomfortable going all-out to help me when I’m going against Buck’s wife,” Strickland told National Journal’s Shane Goldmacher. “You take your wife’s races a little more personal than even your own.” If he stuck by Wilk, Strickland was jeopardizing financial support from the National Republican Congressional Committee. Thereby proving, “He that hath a full purse never wanted a friend.”

To recap: McKeon got his friends in high places (the GOP Caucus) to help his friend with benefits (Patricia McKeon) by pressuring McCarthy into convincing his BFF (Strickland) to ditch the endorsement of his lifelong friend (Wilk).

With Friends Like These…

If you’re having trouble keeping up, you might need to track down a teenage girl to explain this next part. From 2001-2006, Rep. McKeon “got by with a little help from his friend.” A district director named … Scott Wilk. As McKeon’s top district aide, Wilk helped build McKeon’s political machine and made sizeable contributions to McKeon’s re-election campaigns.

Wilk entered the Assembly race long before Patricia expressed interest in any political office. Now, he’s facing the political machine and name identification he helped build. Wilk has to be wondering, “With friends like the McKeons, who needs enemies?” If, by this point in the story, you’ve lost all hope in political friendship, it’s not all de-friending in California’s 26th congressional race.

California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro, a longtime Strickland friend and campaign contributor, made a rare pre-primary endorsement of Strickland’s congressional bid. Locally, another Strickland friend, Ventura County GOP Chairman Mike Osborn, came through with a masterful, early endorsement by the county party. Under the California Republican Party’s new bylaws, the local party endorsement is a prerequisite before any party apparatus can get involved. The Osborn-orchestrated vote was unanimous.

“There is no better choice to represent Ventura County in Congress than Tony Strickland,” Osborn said of his good friend. Both Del Beccaro and Osborn can thank Strickland for helping them secure their party positions. State legislators appoint delegates to the state party and serve as ex-officio members of county committees.

It’s also safe to assume that the Los Angeles County Republican Party will follow Ventura County’s lead. The LA County GOP Chairwoman is Lynn Haueter. The Santa Clarita Signal recently dished that Haueter’s day job is as a full-time district representative for Sen. Strickland. According to her official party biography, Haueter was appointed to the county central committee by Strickland, after she helped with his 2008 campaign.

Haueter’s name is well known in the Santa Clarita Valley because of her husband, Bob. Yet another political friendship with benefits. Bob, who has a reputation as one of the most effective political professionals in California, works as the deputy chief of staffto Rep. McKeon.

A Friend in Need

Wilk, too, has some notable friends. McClintock, the political operation where Strickland and Wilk first forged their friendship, announced that he’d stick with Wilk. “He impresses the hell out of me and that was one of the easiest endorsements I’ve made in my whole career,” McClintock told National Journal.

The biggest name in California conservative politics also offered a principled example that “a friend in need is a friend indeed.” Like his mentor McClintock, Wilk proved he’s also a loyal friend, a man who stands by his friends through thick and thin. “Tony is good friend and I still want him to know that he has my full support in his run for Congress,” Wilk posted on his Facebook page, the gold standard of friendship. “Tony Strickland will make an excellent congressman.”

Liberals Not Better Friends

Liberals can’t take too much pleasure in the Republican trouble among friends. Linda Parks and Steve Bennett, both liberal Ventura County Supervisors, have entered the 26th House race. Both are longtime leaders in the SOAR environmental movement. Both have unimpeachable environmental credentials. Both “led the political fight to save Ahmanson Ranch,” where they are shown in the picture at the right. Both have endorsed each other in their past supervisorial campaigns.

In 2007, Parks stood by Bennett’s side when he launched his re-election campaign. Parks was with Bennett on day one, a full year in advance of the election. In 2010, Bennett reciprocated with crucial support for Parks’ re-election fight against Audra Strickland, the wife of Tony. Audra was an assemblywoman who had to leave that office because of term limits. She lost badly in Parks in the election for supervisor.

Top Two Primary

Now, these one-time friends, Parks and Bennett, will be competing over the same pool of voters: liberals, women and environmentalists. California’s new primary rules might re-unite these friends-turned rivals again after the primary. The “Top Two” system means the top two vote winners in the primary, regardless of party, move on to the general election; no other choices will be on the ballot.

Should Bennett lose to Parks in the primary, Democrats may consider endorsing Parks in the general election. Strickland is considered Public Enemy No. 1 by Ventura County Democrats.

Meanwhile, Parks said in her campaign announcement she’d consider “no party preference,” a new designation under the Top Two system. Democrats may have no choice but to adopt the mantra: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What’s the lesson from this case study in political friendship? Good friends are hard to find. When in doubt, stick to man’s best friend. “Better make it a small dog, because it may turn on you also,” warned former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in what’s come to be known as the Rumsfeld Corollary, according to Safire’s Political Dictionary.

Maybe that’s why Strickland has three Chihuahuas.

(Notes: The dogs are not Strickland’s. And before my etymology friends email me: David Rothman, author of “The Solomon Scandals,” and Barry Popik, a contributor-consultant to the Oxford English Dictionary, have documented why Harry Truman isn’t the author of the famous quote.)