OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Kelly Hubbard and the War within the GOP

Posted by Walter Myers III on May 17, 2014

donnelly-with-Latino-woman-250x164In the same manner that he carelessly accused Assemblyman Allan Mansoor of calling a constituent a racist when Mansoor was simply defending one of his staff members who had been accused of being an illegal immigrant, Kelly Hubbard comes out with an article on the Orange County Tea Party blog condemning the Orange County Lincoln Club for a vote of “no confidence” in California governor candidate Tim Donnelly (due in part to his rigid stance on resolving the illegal immigration problem). Hubbard’s first hyper-intelligent lob at the Lincoln Club is that it is filled with “nothing but corporatist country-club [sic] republicans, who like to influence candidates to support their version of amnesty by bribing them with donations and support.” Well, I am a recent addition to the board of the Lincoln Club. I don’t belong to a country club (seeing nothing wrong with those who do as I’m happy for anyone else’s earned success), and I’m of mixed ancestry (specifically, African, Irish, German, and American Indian). So I don’t even fit the stereotype of “country-club” types and neither do many of the current members of the Lincoln Club. The Lincoln Club of today is made up of an increasingly diverse group of successful people of all backgrounds who share a belief in limited government, maximum civil liberties, and a strong defense to secure those liberties. Yes, the membership fee is higher than many other Political Action Committees, but those fees are used to fund candidates and to attract top talent to our many events so we can interact with not only political leaders but political activists as well such as James O’Keefe and Dr. Ben Carson.

Now I don’t want to disparage Hubbard, as I feel he is a person with good intentions, and I would strongly argue that he actually wants pretty much the same things as the Lincoln Club wants. So why he chooses to demonize the Lincoln Club over its immigration policy is beyond me. He goes on in his article to completely mischaracterize the policy as no more than a “3-point amnesty plan.” But what precisely is the meaning of the word “amnesty?” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition defines amnesty as “a general pardon granted by a government.” So in a sense one could say the Lincoln Club policy advocates for amnesty because one of its provisions does forgive those who have come here illegally by providing them with legal status only. This is a policy paper, not legislation, and its provisions are far different from the actually amnesty legislation signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. The 1986 law provided a path to citizenship and was supposed to provide for tighter border enforcement. There were supposed to be tough employer sanctions. But as we all know, the border was never secured primarily due to poor funding, and the employer sanctions were so watered down they were effectively worthless. So illegal immigrants continued to come and reasonably concluded that it was worth the risk coming to America to work illegally, and employers continued to hire them on the flimsiest of paperwork. And now we have the same problem, only worse.

The Lincoln Club policy recognized the failings of the 1986 amnesty but unlike Hubbard, who wants a simple employer enforcement solution so illegal immigrants will self-deport, we didn’t feel self-deportation was either an effective or humane solution to the problem of illegal immigration. The Lincoln Club, led by committee Chairwoman Teresa Hernandez, deliberated for a good two years to produce the policy. It was a lot of hard work and wasn’t done at the Shady Canyon Golf Club sipping single-malt scotch while smoking cigars with agribusiness lobbyists as Hubbard probably envisions. It was a group of thoughtful people including representatives from the Hispanic 100 in a joint effort who had strong, sometimes diverging views on solving the immigration problem. And when the policy was done, there were no “bribes” as Hubbard puts it consisting of donations and support. We simply met with candidates and elected leaders explaining the policy and why we felt the specific sequencing was important to solving the problem, preventing us from landing in the same place we are twenty years from now as with the 1986 amnesty. The first item, border enforcement, was absolutely vital to the Lincoln Club policy, and was accepted unanimously by members of both the Lincoln Club and the Hispanic 100. Despite what Hubbard might think about “pandering” to certain groups as he has written elsewhere, the majority of Hispanics believe in protecting our border, and do not believe citizenship should simply be extended to those who have obviously broken the law. This is reflected in the Lincoln Club policy thinking.

The Lincoln Club believes that the three-point plan must be executed in its entirety, probably best in a sequential manner so we can ensure the success of previous components. Only once the border is secured shall the plan proceed to creating a guest worker program, even though that program would begin preparation phases concurrently, such as registering current illegal workers and setting up a functioning guest worker program similar to the guest worker Bracero Program that ran from 1942 to 1964. As a member of the committee, I actually felt the guest worker program was more important than the border enforcement because if you think about it, if there is a legal, safe means to come the United States to work, based purely on market forces of supply and demand, why would anyone come here illegally unless they were either stupid or engaged in criminal activity? So I lost on that argument, but that demonstrates how vital the Lincoln Club felt that unless the United States couldn’t or wouldn’t protect its border, then it wouldn’t get a guest worker program right either, so that was first priority. The third point is employer enforcement and support, using technology available today that makes it easy to track guest workers electronically and ensure employers that they are complying with the law. Of course, all points of the three-point plan depend on Congress doing the right thing for all three, and the Lincoln Club immigration policy committee was adamant this be done the right way so we don’t have the same problem we’re trying to solve now twenty years from now.

To close, and to the point of my title, I want to point out the tone in Hubbard’s piece, which is my biggest worry for the people who follow his articles and more importantly, the Republican Party itself. In a private communication, Hubbard intimated to me that in growing the party it shouldn’t exclude “the base.” What Hubbard doesn’t understand is this works both ways. As I wrote in my last post here, any candidate such as Donnelly needs the conservative base, the establishment, and Reagan Democrats to have any chance of winning the governorship in California. So Hubbard may argue that we need people like him who he calls the base (and as a social conservative/Tea Party advocate I include myself in the base), but I’m arguing that we need Republicans who do not represent “the base” as well. And from my view, much to my lament, is a party at war with itself, tearing itself apart while Democrats stand united behind more government control over our lives. So lobbing grenades from either side gets us nowhere, and on the Tea Party side Hubbard is one of the ringleaders in grenade throwing exercises, which should stop and could stop if they choose to stop. I don’t recall Hubbard reaching out to Allan Mansoor to get his perspective before leveling race-based charges, and I don’t recall him reaching out to Teresa Hernandez or anyone else on the Lincoln Club immigration policy committee to ask for more details or a better understanding. What we got was an uninformed hit piece. My hope is that in the future, Hubbard will be looking to understand first before he writes, and that he will be open to a rapprochement between “the base” and the establishment/country club Republicans he so likes to deride, not realizing that he needs them as much as they need him for the Republican Party to continue to survive in Orange County, the state of California, and indeed, the country at large.

3 Responses to “Kelly Hubbard and the War within the GOP”

  1. In the interest of giving the readers a full perspective, I encourage folks to check out my original posting on octeapartyblog.com, which Walter calls an “uniformed hit piece.” Speaking of hit pieces, the opinions I expressed in my blog piece below about the Lincoln Club aren’t half as damaging or as much of a “hit piece” as what the Lincoln Club has done to Tim Donnelly by publicly having ‘no confidence’ in him and joining the establishment GOP in trying to derail him. Anything a little known individual like me has said about the powerful Lincoln Club pales in comparison to what they are contributing to by publicly denouncing Tim and attempting to stop his momentum.

    I also find it interesting that a so-called supporter of Donnelly, which Walter claims to be, is still a member of an organization that came out against his favorite candidate in such a public way! I personally wouldn’t be a member of an organization that would do such a thing and join in the hit squad against my favorite candidate! Yes, I said hit squad! What the establishment and their allies have been engaging in lately against Donnelly can only be characterized in such a way!

    Furthermore, I find it interesting that he (Walter) would refer to his favorite candidate’s stance on immigration as “rigid.” Putting aside the fact that a comment like that hardly sounds like it’s coming from a supporter of Tim’s, I want to ask Walter what is so rigid about wanting our borders secured and wanting current immigration laws to be enforced? I wasn’t aware that those are “rigid” stances as it relate to immigration! Most Americans have the same exact views on immigration as Mr. Donnelly! There is nothing “rigid” or unfair or harsh about wanting current immigration laws to be enforced!

    With all the criticism I received from Walter for saying things that he finds offensive and him accusing me of using divisive language, calling folks who simply want the laws on the books enforced, as “rigid” seems to me to be using divisive language as well! Wanting employers and business owners prosecuted for knowingly violating our immigration laws is not “rigid” or mean, or harsh! Wanting our borders fully secured, which means the finishing of the fence, which Congress authorized in 2006, is not a “rigid stance!” It seems to me that many pro-enforcement folks like Donnelly and myself are being unfairly mis-characterized by the other side! Of course these are the same folks, who accuse us of dividing the party with the words and language we use! Interesting!

    One last thing, Walter criticised me for calling many of those in the Lincoln Club “Country Club Republicans.” Tim Donnelly said a very similar thing about the Lincoln Club at the debate the other day and also in a recent article. I encourage folks to check those things out for themselves! The debate is already posted on You-tube! Donnelly said he’s thankful that the Orange County Lincoln Club doesn’t elect candidates and that it’s the voters who decide! He also said he wants to bring more country into the club! I couldn’t agree more! This perception of the Lincoln Club is not just my perception only!

    In closing, I have a right to my opinions on the Lincoln Club’s policy on this issue. My opinions are the views of thousands of Orange County conservatives! I would be the first to recognize the rich history of the Lincoln Club and I very much appreciate many of the causes and candidates they have supported over the years! Having said that, I fundamentally disagree with their policy on immigration, which is a disagreement shared by many grassroots conservatives throughout the Orange Country republican party!

    At the end of the day, the Orange County Lincoln Club really has no influence on setting national immigration policy and a part of me finds this whole exchange a little silly for spending this much time talking about this matter! The one thing I highly object to and take very seriously is their effort to undermine our awesome conservative candidate Tim Donnelly! That is what originally motivated me to write my blog piece and I will continue to let folks know about these efforts to derail a good and righteous conservative Tim Donnelly, who I might add won decisively the other day on the John & Ken radio debate!

    Everything including the kitchen sink is being thrown and Mr. Donnelly to disrupt his progress in the polls and to prevent him from the top two status! It’s really sad that instead of staying out of this race and being at least neutral, the Lincoln Club has decided to help pile-on in an attempt to stop him! That is my constitutionally protected opinion and hope others will respect it as I respect theirs! Thanks and God bless, Kelly

  2. […] https://ocpolitical.com/2014/05/17/kelly-hubbard-and-the-war-within-the-gop/ […]

  3. Walter Myers III said

    I have two responses to Kelly. The Lincoln Club came out against Donnelly because of some of the divisive things he has said, and continues to say. Just because I personally support Donnelly, and my contributions to his campaign say that explicitly, I believe he has to understand as does Kelly that the immigration problem does not have a simple solution, and some compromises have to be made. It is not an all or nothing proposition, and the Lincoln Club has been firm on what it feels is negotiable vs. what is non-negotiable. So when I say Donnelly is rigid, and I might add that Kelly is rigid as well, I see people with whom I share a number of views but on this particular issue I believe their stance needs to leave room for some negotiation. It is more than simply wanting “the laws on the books enforced.” I want the laws on the books enforced as well, as is, but the truth is that they’re not being enforced and that is why we need legislation with some teeth. That’s not the part that I find divisive. What I find divisive is Kelly’s calling the Lincoln Club policy a “3-point amnesty plan,” calling the Lincoln Club a “pro-amnesty” club, and railing against “Country Club Republicans” who he still has not found the time to reach out to. As I said before, Donnelly is not going to win without “Country Club Republicans,” and with people like Kelly being such a strident voice for Donnelly with no gravitas, I see someone who is content with a party that is at war.

    We have a prospective member for the Lincoln Club this week, Kelly. I would invite you as my guest to actually meet some of the “Country Club Republicans” that I think you will see are nothing like the way you characterize them. If you email me I will send you details and you would be welcome to come.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: