The Central Committee has endorsed three Pro-Choice Candidates for the November election.  

Laura Ferguson – City Council of San Clemente

Jaimey Federico – City Council of Dana Pointe

Barabara Delegleize – (Incumbent) City Council of Huntington Beach

When Laura Ferguson’s request for endorsement was before the endorsement committee, LeRoy Mills indicated that his conscience would not allow him to support her, given her Pro-Choice stance.  Her request for endorsement was sent to the full committee with the Endorsement Committee voting 4-1.  The full committee voted to endorse her.  Laura Ferguson responded to this bloggers request for confirmation, indicating that she was open and honest about her stance and noted that LeRoy Mills did in fact vote to endorse one candidate who was also Pro-Choice in spite of expressing concern about Ferguson. 

Jamey Federico is a retired Marine, Lieutenant Collonel. Jennifer Beal and Gene Hernandez expressed their support for Federico at the Endorsement Committee meeting. Linda Davies expressed concern that liberals were gaining ground in coastal areas.  Federico stated his belief that Cheif Justice Roberts and Judge Kavanagh have made statement indicating that Roe v. Wade is “settled law”.  No one questioned his articulation of the law or what he had atributed to the justices.  He also stated that he has spoken to voters who have not voted Republican because of this one issue.  LeRoy Mills questioned Federico on his Pro-Choice stance, but Federico was unanimously, 5-0, reccommended to be sent to the full committee for endorsement.   It is not clear what made the difference to LeRoy Mills between these two Pro-Choice candidates.  Federico was then later, endorsed by the full Central Committee. 

Barbara Delegleize was endorsed by the full Central Committee on August 20.  She received the requisite signatures to bypass the Endorsements Committee.  Delegleize is an incumbent, running her third race for Huntington Beach City council.  She did not reeive the OCGOP endorsement the first time she ran, she beleives that was because she was candidly Pro-Choice.  She indicates she has not changed that position.  She stated did not seek the endorsment of the OCGOP when she ran for the term she is currently serving, believing that her Pro-choice stance would again prevent her from obtaining the endorsement. However, now, with no indication of what has or might have chnged in the interim, other than her being a Republican incumbent, she received the endorsement with no significant resistance. She indicated she was not present at the meeting wherein she received the party approval.  This blogger inquired of Delegleize if she was aware of the terms of the party platform related to abortion.  Delegleize indicated there were many issues in which the party deviated from what it’s stated position is. 

As is shown from the reporting that appears throughout this blog, there was no lack of discussion in the endorsements process. Members of the Endorsement and Central Committee asked detail, relevant and pointed questions.  It is not clear why then, there was this aquiescnence to candidates who balatantly veered off the platform.  The party platform states:

THE RIGHT TO LIFE

The California Republican Party is the party that protects innocent life because we believe life begins at conception and ends at natural death.

We support laws that protect unborn children from partial birth, sex selection, and tax-payer funded abortions, and abortions performed as a form of birth control or on minor girls without their parents’ notification and consent.

We believe that the question of abortion is a matter that should be left to the people through their elected representatives, not usurped by the United States Supreme Court. Accordingly, we encourage the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision.

We support adoption as an alternative to abortion and call on lawmakers to reduce the bureaucratic burden placed on adoptive couples.

As a part of respecting the sanctity of life for disabled persons, we oppose efforts to legalize assisted suicide or euthanasia.

We support a comprehensive ban on all human cloning.

The California Republican Party supports ethical stem cell research that focuses on cures and does not destroy innocent human life. 

The platform is not only clear, it is fully contrary and incongruent with the opinion statement of Candidate Federico, and easily something that both Delegleize and Ferguson were aware of.  

Peggy Huang, Endorsement Committe Member and Central Committee officer,  reportedly commented, that in City Council elections, these issues rarely come up and are not particularly relevant. (She has not been reached to confirm)  Delegleize, in discussing it with this blogger, affirmed that as being her view as well, stating that aborition is an issue of federal law and national policy not likely to come before the city council.

This unfortunate and short sighted view, ignores the fact that higher offices are filled by candidates, who began their political career in lower offices. Former Chairman Baugh more than once reminded the Central Committee in endorsement meetings that Governor Jerry Brown was once a Community Collge Board member.  This “What difference does it make” attitude also ignores the fact the the issue of Life, is one that is personal, and local, and by defintion in the case law that defines it, the responsibilty of the state to set the law and policy. It is a state issue.  It is by definition in the consitution and subsequent case law, a state issue. To dismiss abortion as a non-issue at the ‘city council’ level displays an abject ignorance of the law, and in particular of the deceptive and guerrilla tactics of abortion giant, Planned Parenthood.  

The comment by Linda Davies, that liberals are gaining traction and territory in coastal cities, presumably meaning, Hunitngton Beach, San Clemente, and Dana Point, is telling.  It is consistent with the years long trend of the OCGOP to lament about losing ground, while at the same time declaring it is necessary to give up some more.  

Why is this the approach?  Why is the strategy to compromise and relinquish and negate what the party itself alleges to stand for?

At a time when the national Republican party is seeing unprecendented growth, in donations and membership, the once conservative leader, Orange County, survives by constant measured acquiescence.  There was some discussion in these meetings of mentoring new candidates, but the myopic attention to details of what pledge each candidate had signed and whom they may have supported in past elections, overcame any discussions of party ideals and foundational concepts.  The forest of minutea has overtaken the gloriousness of the trees which are, our core beleifs.  

Every time government grows, Liberty dies a little, and every “right” that has to be exercised at the expense of another, is not freedom, but oppression.  

This, is conservativism in a nutshell.

Conservativism, is in every way, a better idea than the constant outrage being peddled by the Left. It does not require killing to implement, but we have to understand and be capable of articulating it.  A gay hardresser from New York has managed to do it, to articulate conservative ideals in a way that is meanignful and attractive.  But, leaders in the OCGOP are working off an older and different script. One that assumes and starts from a place where our ideals are too lofty and we must torque it down, and whittle off some corners somewhere.   #WalkAway gets it, and they are growing the party by a movement that sees the benefits in the tenets of conservativism, and recognizes the illusive falsehood of freedom gained through the oppression of another class of people.  We have no need to apologize or compromise in order to deceive some people to come over to our side.  We have better ideas, and one of them, is Life. 

When it came to slaves, and women and civil rights, Republicans have managed to be on the right side of history, consistently standing for the oppressed.  Why would we seek to join the Left now and give up on our stated agenda to end the genocide of the unborn?

OCGOP has missed the  mark, and missed the movement.  These endorsements make it apparent that they either don’t believe in conservative ideals, or lack any understanding and ability to communicate them.  

These leaders are right about the fact that we are losing ground, but they miss the fact that we are losing ground, because they are giving it away.  

If candidates don’t adhere to the platform, then don’t endorse.  If that is problematic, then at least bring some integrity and truth into the process and declare that the platform is abandonned, and set parameters that are real.  Based upon this and prior election endorsements, perhaps the parameters should be…..we will endorse you as long as you did not cause any trouble for our friends; we will endose you as long as you have enough money in the bank; we will endorse you if you are a war hero; we will endorse you if you gave money to other people we like; we will endorse you if you belong to the right clubs, or if you have participated in winning elections; we might even endorse you if you fit a demographic.  

It sounds silly, but if you are watching this process over the past few election seasons,  there’s some scary truth right there.

We have better ideas.  We have a better platform.  The rest of the nation is catching this, why can’t OCGOP get it?  We don’t have to pander, and we should not.  We could sustain high standards and succeed.  Selling out our core values inherently weakens our message, in all races, and conspires in a fraud on the voter.  A voter sees the platform, sees the endorsement, and thinks they are the same. In these three instnaces, they are dramtically ideologically, different. 

We stand for something or we don’t.  At this point, with these endorsements, we stand, with the Democrats, on the graves of 60 million aborted Americans.  Is that where we want to be?