OC Political

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

Archive for the ‘California’ Category

Blogger Disclosures Open Up A Huge Can Of Worms

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on April 20, 2012

H/T to Total Buzz for posting on their blog the story on California potentially forcing bloggers to reveal if they have received payments from political campaigns.

I am sure that this will open me up for attack in the comment section, but I feel the need to take a stance against the idea of blogger payment disclosure (full disclosure I am a blogger). “OC Political” does receive money from advertisers or in the case of a client that has retained us as consultants we will provide an advertisement as part of the contract. We do not attempt to hide our advertisers our clients (simply look to your left). The real problem here is the bigger issue of California and the amount of overregulation they impose.

We openly disclose who our consulting clients are when writing posts that may impact them or potential opponents that they may face in an election. The reason we do this is to maintain our credibility as a blog and to ensure that our readers are aware of any potential bias that we may have.

However, having California regulate blogger payments is simply an overburdensome regulation. We already are supposed to be tracking this in the form 460’s filled out by all candidates that disclose who they received campaign contributions from and what they spent campaign money on as well.

FlashReport author Jon Fleischman sums the problem up best in his quote to the Orange County Register blog:

How would the Fair Political Practices Commission handle anonymous blogs? Would advertising revenue fall under the regulated payments? How would the commission educate amateur bloggers?

As stated before, we here at “OC Political” believe in disclosing our financial interests in campaigns, but only for the purpose of maintaining our credibility. Other blogs can do whatever they want in terms of disclosure, but should they choose not to disclose a financial gain from supporting a candidate or opposing a candidate the end result should simply be a loss of credibility not an FPPC fine.

With much bigger issues at play in California than blogging I think this is simply another smoke screen to distract away from the real budgetary problems that California faces.

Posted in California, Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Does Santorum Dropping Out Help Or Hurt California Republicans?

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on April 17, 2012

As most if not all of our readers are aware, Rick Santorum last week announced that he was suspending his campaign. Translation: The numbers didn’t look good and so he felt like it was time to drop out. Many Republicans especially Romney supporters applauded the decision with the feeling that the Republican party would benefit from this. May take is a bit different…

I may be putting a bit more thought than necessary into this, but I question whether or not Santorum dropping out helps or hurts California Republicans in June. Let me first state that I have been a Romney supporter from the beginning of this race.

Santorum dropping out though essentially ends the primary thus making Romney the nominee. This may sound great to some Republicans but if you are in California a state that has not voted yet this is bad news.

In a post Prop 14 world it is important to make sure that turnout is as high as possible in the June election. Even if the race is between 2 people (a proverbial beauty contest) winning in June shows strength for a November fight.

A decided election for Romney will greatly drive down turnout for Republicans in June. This will potentially hurt candidates like Allan Mansoor, Chris Norby, and the Republicans running for the 47th Congressional District.

In the Allan Mansoor race a lower Republican turnout could make it a lot easier for Leslie Daigle to capture the votes necessary to advance to the run-off. My reasoning is that with a lowered threshold of votes Daigle could spend the right amount of money to pick-off enough voters to advance.

With Chris Norby, even though he advances to the November election regardless of the outcome, it would benefit him to win big. The reasoning here is because if Quirk-Silva gets beat big in June the Democrats will not pour in resources to her race.

In CD 47 the Republican turnout will likely be compared to the Democrats turnout and if Republicans compete well in the numbers game expect big resources to be put in by the NRCC. This one will be tough even with NRCC resources, so Republicans should cross their fingers.

In conclusion, Santorum dropping out is good for Mitt Romney and the Republican prospects in November, but for California Republicans in June maybe not quite as great.

For the sake of Republican turnout I hope that Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul stick around up until at least June 7th.

 

Posted in California, National | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Good Friday Fraud Email Alert: “Bold Explanations” Needed from Dan Hughes

Posted by Republican Willie Brown on April 6, 2012

The email-gate saga continues with Dan Hughes for US Senate (should be mosquito abatement district).

Several weeks ago you may have been attacked in your email box like me, through a list you never signed up for, and received an email from Dan Hughes plagiarizing, verbatim, text from the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops on contraception with no attribution. 

Now this.  

I’m preparing to enjoy Good Friday with my family to commemorate the crucifixion of Jesus and his death at Calvary, when what pops up in my inbox?  

A fundraising email from Dan Hughes, the unapologetic, elusive Senate candidate from San Diego (really from New York) touting a poll in which he is at 2%, or in other words 49% behind Dianne Feinstein.  

Now, the poll conducted by SurveyUSA is certainly less than credible by any professional standards (more on that later), but nonetheless let’s assume it has some credibility.  Dan Hughes suggests he is leading the GOP field of candidates, but apparently he forgot to check the actual tally and relied on the percentage.  Whoops…..he is actually tied with Emken, 24 votes to 24 votes.

I can’t wait to hear his “bold explanation” for this error; one of many errors made by his campaign of late.

Advice to Mr. Hughes: 1) A fundraising email on Good Friday is really tacky and my devout Catholic mother-in-law was deeply offended to receive it, 2) Check and re-check your numbers before you own them, and, 3) Strategically, you should think twice before you rubber stamp a recommendation from your campaign team to promote a poll that shows you at 2%.

On that note, I bid you a good Easter weekend.

Posted in California | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

Capitol Alert: Assemblyman Suspected Of Drunk Driving

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 29, 2012

In what could best be considered an idiot move if he is found guilty an Assemblyman has been arrested on suspicion of drunk driving (H/T Capitol Alert). Democrat Assemblyman Roger Hernandez was pulled over in Concord on suspicion of drunk driving.

He admits to having a couple of drinks, but he also claims that he did not have enough alcohol to impair him from driving. Whether he actually did it or not will not be known until after the results of a blood test come back. Hernandez apparently refused to take a breathalyzer test which does not look good, although I am not an expert on DUI procedure.

What could be the juiciest part of the story is that Hernandez refused to acknowledge whether or not somebody else was in the car with him. If indeed somebody was with him, I would be very interested in knowing who it was.

Hernandez joins a list of recent State Legislators to get pulled over for suspected DUI including all of the following:

Senator Roy Ashburn (R)
Assemblyman Martin Garrick (R)

Back when I used to write for Red County before it turned into a boring blog, I penned an article talking about getting much tougher on DUI penalties. Many people disagreed with me, and I respect that. My opinion stays the same in that a DUI should carry a mandatory jail sentence of at least 7 days even for first offenders.

Posted in California, State Assembly | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

CACS Releases 2010 Election Spending Report

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on March 29, 2012

This press release just came across the wire from California Common Sense. Normally we run our press releases on Friday-Sunday, but the consensus was that this was a worthy post for the middle of the week. This article shows what appears to be the root of the problem in California:

CACS RELEASES 2010 ELECTION SPENDING REPORT

Over $358 Million Spent on California Campaigns

Los Altos, CA—California Common Sense (www.cacs.org) released a report detailing donations to California political races in the 2010 elections. The report was written by CACS researcher Sydney Evans. 2010 was the most expensive election cycle in California’s history. Individuals, corporations, trade associations, unions and political/interest/advocacy groups (PIAs) contributed a total of $358,173,393. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in California | Leave a Comment »

ATTN: Candidates Do Not Use Copy/Paste For Press Releases

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 22, 2012

I was taking a look at some of the press releases sitting in my inbox this morning and one of which was a press release from Dan Hughes a candidate for U.S. Senate. As you can probably guess since this article is not being posted under the “Newsletter Reprint” account, more to this story exists than a simple press release. Here is the exact press release issued by the Hughes for U.S. Senate Campaign this morning:

This Friday, March 23rd, marks the 130 city “Stand up for Religious Freedom” rally.  I will be attending the rally at 12:00 noon at the San Diego County Administration Building.  Please find the rally nearest to you and attend.

Thank you to all who have stood firmly in vigorous opposition to the unjust and illegal HHS mandate, including the Catholic Church, women and men of all religions (or none at all), legal scholars, and civic leaders. It is this enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. We will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.

I would like to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the religious institution’s hand or funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the religious institutions wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing religious institutions—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against religious teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

So what is it about?

An unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a “religious employer” deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith. I am deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry. The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom. Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry. HHS thus creates and enforces a new distinction—alien both to our religious institutions and to federal law—between our houses of worship and our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need, of any faith community or none.  All—not just some—of our religious institutions share equally in the very same God-given, legally recognized right not “to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] own beliefs.” Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2.

A mandate to act against religious teachings. The exemption is not merely a government foray into internal Church governance, where government has no legal competence or authority—disturbing though that may be. This error in theory has grave consequences in principle and practice. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers” will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world.

“We the People” throughout our country must join together for the complete protection of our First Freedom—religious liberty—which is not only protected in the laws and customs of our great nation, but rooted in the teachings of our great Tradition.

 

I was tipped off that the majority of this press release was copied and pasted from the “United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” website. Take a look at the statement from their website:

March 14 Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate

 A Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

March 14, 2012

The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gathered for its March 2012 meeting, is strongly unified and intensely focused in its opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day. In our role as Bishops, we approach this question prayerfully and as pastors—concerned not only with the protection of the Church’s own institutions, but with the care of the souls of the individual faithful, and with the common good.

To address the broader range of religious liberty issues, we look forward to the upcoming publication of “A Statement on Religious Liberty,” a document of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. This document reflects on the history of religious liberty in our great Nation; surveys the current range of threats to this foundational principle; and states clearly the resolve of the Bishops to act strongly, in concert with our fellow citizens, in its defense.

One particular religious freedom issue demands our immediate attention: the now-finalized rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would force virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception—including abortifacient drugs—subject to an exemption for “religious employers” that is arbitrarily narrow, and to an unspecified and dubious future “accommodation” for other religious organizations that are denied the exemption.

We begin, first, with thanks to all who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate: to our brother bishops; to our clergy and religious; to our Catholic faithful; to the wonderful array of Catholic groups and institutions that enliven our civil society; to our ecumenical and interfaith allies; to women and men of all religions (or none at all); to legal scholars; and to civic leaders. It is your enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. With your continued help, we will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.

Second, we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

So what is it about?

An unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a “religious employer” deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith. We are deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry. The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom. Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry. HHS thus creates and enforces a new distinction—alien both to our Catholic tradition and to federal law—between our houses of worship and our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need, of any faith community or none. Cf. Deus Caritas Est, Nos. 20-33. We are commanded both to love and to serve the Lord; laws that protect our freedom to comply with one of these commands but not the other are nothing to celebrate. Indeed, they must be rejected, for they create a “second class” of citizenship within our religious community. And if this definition is allowed to stand, it will spread throughout federal law, weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity. All—not just some—of our religious institutions share equally in the very same God-given, legally recognized right not “to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] own beliefs.” Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2.

A mandate to act against our teachings. The exemption is not merely a government foray into internal Church governance, where government has no legal competence or authority—disturbing though that may be. This error in theory has grave consequences in principle and practice. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers” will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world. For decades, the Bishops have led the fight against such government incursions on conscience, particularly in the area of health care. Far from making us waver in this longstanding commitment, the unprecedented magnitude of this latest threat has only strengthened our resolve to maintain that consistent view.

A violation of personal civil rights.The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing “services” contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption. This, too, is unprecedented in federal law, which has long been generous in protecting the rights of individuals not to act against their religious beliefs or moral convictions. We have consistently supported these rights, particularly in the area of protecting the dignity of all human life, and we continue to do so.

Third, we want to indicate our next steps. We will continue our vigorous efforts at education and public advocacy on the principles of religious liberty and their application in this case (and others). We will continue to accept any invitation to dialogue with the Executive Branch to protect the religious freedom that is rightly ours. We will continue to pursue legislation to restore the same level of religious freedom we have enjoyed until just recently. And we will continue to explore our options for relief from the courts, under the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws that protect religious freedom. All of these efforts will proceed concurrently, and in a manner that is mutually reinforcing.

Most importantly of all, we call upon the Catholic faithful, and all people of faith, throughout our country to join us in prayer and penance for our leaders and for the complete protection of our First Freedom—religious liberty—which is not only protected in the laws and customs of our great nation, but rooted in the teachings of our great Tradition. Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength—for without God, we can do nothing; but with God, all things are possible.

This is not a smart move from the Hughes campaign and I think that one of his opponents will likely call him on it. If you are going to copy and paste your content for a press release, at least cite the source that you are taking your content from.

Posted in California | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

Glad OC’s Not in the IE: Riverside Registrar Abrogates Public Review Period

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 21, 2012

Riverside County in Black, Orange County in OrangeIn Orange County, the Registrar of Voters has long published both candidates’ statements and ballot designations for review by the public in the ten days after candidate filing.  They cite Elections Code Section 13313, which states, “(a) The elections official shall make a copy of the material referred to in Section 13307 available for public examination in the elections official’s office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents…”  (Section 13307 refers to the candidate’s statement, name, age, and occupation; the occupation is of course what the ballot designation describes.)

In a stunning disregard for public input, the Riverside County Registrar of Voters has completely abrogated the public review period for ballot designations.  No fewer than 61 candidates had “Ballot Designation Pending” during the entire public review period (and actually still do as of this morning).  Keep in mind, I’m using the most generous standard possible in counting just 61: I’m excluding the US Senate race, along with any multi-county Congressional races or multi-county state legislative races (in multi-county races, you could go to the Registrars of the other counties to find the ballot designation).  Candidates for everything from Congress to State Legislature to County Supervisor to County Board of Education to Central Committee had “Ballot Designation Pending” as their ballot designation.

In the system as run by the Orange County Registrar of Voters, the ballot designations are published literally the same night that candidate filing closes, and the public is allowed ten days to file suit to obtain a writ of mandate from the Orange County Superior Court to force a ballot designation change if the plaintiff is able to prove (to the satisfaction of the judge) that the ballot designation is false, misleading, or somehow otherwise does not meet the requirements of the Elections Code (like using certain words on the forbidden word list).  Every election, there’s at least one, usually more, lawsuits in Orange County seeking writs of mandate over ballot designations.  Indeed, there are often suits at the state level over ballot designations (Attorney General and Board of Equalization District 2 come to mind from 2010).

Candidate filing for most offices closed on Friday, March 9, meaning the 10-day public review period ended two days ago on Monday, March 19.

However, the Riverside County Registrar of Voters has completely abrogated this public review for ballot designations.  The 10-day public review period has come and gone, and 61 candidates still have “Ballot Designation Pendling” under their names.  If a Riverside County resident had wanted to file suit to obtain a writ of mandate from the Riverside County Superior Court to force a ballot designation change, they would not have been able to do so because they would not have been able to view the ballot designations in order to file suit.  A plaintiff cannot prove a ballot designation is false, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the Elections Code if the ballot designation is simply pending.

While the Orange County Registrar of Voters allows voters to appeal ballot designations by giving them time to file suit with the Orange County Superior Court during the public review period to challenge ballot designations, it seems the Riverside Registrar of Voters wants to act as the all-powerful final arbiter of ballot designations, allowing no public recourse.

Posted in California | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

Redistricting Commission Didn’t Realize La Palma is in Orange County

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 19, 2012

38th Congressional District with La Palma Circled in BlueI will first note that I did vote for both Prop 11 (which created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission) and Prop 20 (which extended the Commission’s jurisdiction to Congressional districts).  I do still believe the commission is a better way to redistrict than having the Legislature do it.  However, that doesn’t mean the commission is perfect, and I do believe we should point out their mistakes.

Unbelievably, the Redistricting Commission did not realize that the City of La Palma is in Orange County.  They placed La Palma in the 38th Congressional District, which is represented by Linda Sanchez.  Yes, the Redistricting Commission added another Sanchez sister to the OC Congressional delegation.  Every other city in CD-38 is in LA County.

However, my statement that the Redistricting Commission didn’t realize La Palma is in Orange County isn’t because of the reasons above.  It’s because of the paragraph describing CD-38 in the commission’s final report:

CD 38 includes the Los Angeles County cities and communities of South El Monte, Cerritos, Artesia, Whittier, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, La Mirada, East La Mirado, Montebello, Santa Fe Springs, La Palma, Hawaiian Gardens and divides the cities of Bellflower and Lakewood to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and to achieve population equality. These cities share the major transportation corridors of the Interstate 5 and Interstate 605 freeways, with their corresponding traffic and environmental concerns. The district is characterized by shared commercial, economic, educational, and public safety issues among these cities. In this district, South El Monte is whole.

Yes, the  commission included La Palma in its list of “Los Angeles County cities and communities” in CD-38.  (I’m also sure the people of “East La Mirada” appreciate being called “East La Mirado” in the report.)

How big is La Palma?  It has 15,568 people.  I recognize that some districts do need to cross county lines, but was La Palma really the way to go on that?  Couldn’t 15,568 people be moved from the LA County part of CD-47 to CD-38 and then have La Palma move from CD-38 to CD-47?  CD-47 is 58% LA County and 42% Orange County, so my La Palma switch would simply make CD-47’s composition 56% LA County and 44% Orange County while CD-38 would then be exclusively LA County, instead of 98% LA County and 2% Orange County.  (The switch also would have had little effect on either district’s party registration.)

It seems that Linda Sanchez acquired an Orange County city and joined the OC Congressional delegation due to an error by the Redistricting Commission.

(Again, I do believe the Redistricting Commission has been a net gain for California, but they’re not perfect, and we should point out their mistakes.)

Posted in 38th Congressional District, California, La Palma, Orange County | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Special Report From Craig Alexander On The Stop Special Interest Money Now

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on March 14, 2012

 Greetings fellow Californians!  As you know, 2012 is an important election year.  Of course the Presidential primary and general election are important.  But in California we have an opportunity to end the union and corporate dominance over California politics from Sacramento to our own counties, cities and school districts. I would like to give you information about the initiative so you can see why I believe passing it is vital to our State.  Mark Bucher is Chairman of the campaign to pass this initiative. Mark advised that the initiative qualified for the ballot on December 6, 2011.

Let me begin by asking you some questions.  1. Who do you believe is the largest contributor to politics in California? 2. Are corporations always contributing to conservative politicians and causes? 3. In the last 10 years how much money has been spent by “Special Interests” in California?  4. Finally, doesn’t a proposed law by an individual constituent have as much chance of being enacted as those sponsored by Union Bosses and Corporate Executives?

Answers:

1. The largest contributor to politics in California over the last 10 years is the California Teachers Association closely followed by another government employee union and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America.

2.  No – corporations contribute to their own interests as evidenced by their cooperation in the raising of taxes on all Californians in 2009.

3. Between 2000 and approximately 2009 the top 10 contributors to politics contributed just over 1 Billion dollars to state and local elections.

4.  No – laws sponsored by special interests have a passage rate far greater than that of non-special interests (i.e. you and I).  In fact 40% of all legislation in Sacramento is written by Special Interests or their lobbyists.

What will the passage of the Stop Special Interest Money Now Act do?  Right now employee unions and corporations are allowed to involuntarily take money from their union members / corporate employees and place it directly into their Political Action Committee.  Plus they can contribute directly to politicians’ campaigns.  The passage of the Stop Special Interest initiative will change all that and level the playing field.

Specifically, the Stop Special Interest Money Now Act will:

1) ban both corporate and labor union contributions directly to state and local candidates.

2) prohibit government contractors from contributing to state and local officials who can award them contracts.

3) bar corporations, government employers, and labor unions from collecting funds from employees by payroll deduction and using that money for politics.

4) Preserve every employee’s right to contribute to campaigns by means other than payroll deduction (for example, by check or by monthly debit from an account or credit card), but it ensures that those contributions are voluntarily authorized by the employee in writing annually.

Given the amount of money coming into politics from Unions and Corporations, and since this initiative will to a large extent limit the amount of money they can collect via involuntary payroll deductions, you can see how the passage of this initiative will break the control of unions and corporate special interests in Sacramento and in our cities, counties and school districts.

The politicians will be forced to pay attention to and receive contributions another group of people: their constituents the voters!  You and I!

For today this is all I will write to you on this subject.  I encourage you to find out more about this initiative before the unions and corporations begin their disinformation campaign about the initiative.  You can obtain more information at

http://stopspecialinterestmoney.org/

This initiative is so important that I have volunteered to be a guest speaker for the Stop Special Interest Money Now Act’s Speaker’s Bureau.  So if you have a group you would like to have someone speak about this important initiative, please contact me at cpalexander@cox.net or you may contact the Speaker’s Bureau’s manager Elizabeth Hansell at lizhansell@gmail.com or 310-446-4800.

Posted in California | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

BREAKING NEWS: CRP Endorses Emken For U.S. Senate

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 11, 2012

The CRP has endorsed Elizabeth Emken for U.S. Senate in the race against Dianne Feinstein.  More information later…

UPDATED 11:48 PM– The CRP held a meeting for endorsements which included just 24 members to vote on who should be the endorsed in races throughout California. Emken is a solid candidate and has some solid conservative support so far, even though Feinstein will be extremely tough to beat it is always worth a shot.

The main reason why I am pleased to see the party choose to endorse in this race is for fear that Orly Taitz will advance into the November election. The last thing the Republican Party needs is a lunatic effectively branding the party with their image in what will be a high-profile race.

She is endorsed by local Assemblymembers Jim Silva and Don Wagner.

Posted in California | 1 Comment »