As noted in my earlier post Mark Your Calendars! the California Republican Assembly is holding a Candidate Forum for the 68th Assembly District.
All four announced candidates have committed to participating. They are ALEXIA DELIGIANNI-BRYDGES, Trustee with the Orange Unified School District, DEBORAH PAULY, former City Councilperson for the City of Villa Park, STEVEN S. CHOI, Mayor of the City of Irvine and HARRY SIDHU, former City Councilperson for the City of Anaheim.
The Forum will be held at the City of Orange, City Council Chambers located at 300 East Chapman Ave., Orange, CA 92866 starting at 7:00 p.m. The Forum will be recorded and all are invited to attend. This forum is being organized and presented as a community service by the California Republican Assembly.
The CRA will be conducting an endorsement convention that will include consideration of the 68th Assembly District in March. The seat is currently held by Assemblyman Don Wagner who is not seeking re-election due to term limits.
For more information about this forum contact CRA Executive Vice President Craig Alexander at cpalexander@cox.net or CRA Vice President Dale Tyler at mailcoll@tylerent.com.
Chris Emami reported on the CRA Slate Mailer Newspaper a few days ago (CRA) which CRA Vice President Dale Tyler and I put together with some able help from former CRA Treasurer John Fugatt. Obviously I believe it is the best of the slate mailers newspaper (it is open only to CRA endorsed candidates).
Assuming there are no upsets with the provisional ballot count, 100% of the candidates who placed articles / ads in the mailer either won their races or advanced to the run off in November. Congratulations to Diane Harkery, Eric Woolery, Linda Lindholm, Robert Ming, Bill Brough, Jeff Ferguson and Tony Rackauckas for your win and thank you for believing in our mailer!
It is no secret that Palo Alto physicist and political financier Charles Munger likes to put his money into Republican v. Republican races. What is his goal? In my opinion to remake the California Republican Party in his own liberal / moderate image complete with a platform that takes no position on social issues (or takes pro-abortion / pro-homosexual marriage positions). Thus you can count on the candidates he backs to appoint delegates to the CRP who will be Charles Munger approved and vote they way he wants.
In the 73rd Assembly District (where I live) there are four Republicans and one Democrat running to replace Diane Harkey who is termed out (and running for the State Board of Equalization). One of the Republicans is CUSD school board trustee Anna Bryson who I used to support. However after she won re-election in 2010 she took a sharp turn towards the teachers union and started voting for their causes and positions. I have posted about this before: Why Does the Teachers Union Love Anna Bryson? Due to these votes, I and many others who supported her previously do not support her for any elected position including this one.
Now her major financial backer, Charles Munger, has put into his Spirit of Democracy PAC $250,000 to support Ms. Bryson in her quest for the 73rd Assembly seat. John Harbe over at CalNewsroom.com blog has posted an excellent article outlining how Mr. Munger has spent $322,713 (inclusive of the recent $250,000 into his PAC for her) in support of Ms. Bryson (73rd Assembly: Charles Munger). This is more than all of the candidates have raised for this race combined.
Apparently those of us living in the 73rd Assembly District will now be subjected to TV and other media ads for Ms. Bryson. While she touts herself as a conservative – her voting record (as I have posted about in the above link) tells a very different story. In addition, she recently lost a challenge to her ballot statement when the judge found she had made a false and misleading statement in it (and it was stricken and amended by the judge). I posted on this blog twice about that. Breaking News & Follow Up the latter post including a link to an excellent article by Katy Grimes over at the Flashreport on this subject.
What is particularly disappointing to me are the number of conservatives who have either not vetted her record, spoken to local activists like myself or simply don’t care about her record and endorse her anyway. These include people like Edwin Meese, III, George Shultz, Hugh Hewitt and Assemblyman Don Wagner. I note that none of them live in the 73rd Assembly District. I don’t know if these conservatives realize it, but by supporting someone like Anna Bryson, they are supporting someone who is now extremely beholden to Charles Munger. She will likely join him in making the CRP are much more liberal place where conservatives like them are not welcome. This is in addition to adding her wobbly voting record to the floor of the State Assembly.
For me, I will continue to support the real conservative in the race for the 73rd Assembly District: Dana Point City Councilman Bill Brough. (Why I Am Supporting Bill Brough) I should note that the California Republican Assembly endorsed Bill Brough (CRA RECAP) and he was featured in our recent mailer which Chris Emami just reported on (CRA Newspaper). Anna Bryson did not even show up to the CRA endorsing convention to ask for the endorsement or defend her voting record – even though she was invited to do so. Naturally I hope that Charles Munger cannot buy this seat for her and Bill Brough will be one of the top two to advance to November.
Assembly Candidate Phillip Chen is the first out of the gate by broadcasting campaign commercial on YouTube entitled “Reagan Country”:
Script:
Announcer: California is Reagan Country. A group Ronald Reagan called “The Conscience of the Republican Party” has endorsed one candidate for Assembly: Phillip Chen.
Chen: I am Phillip Chen, like President Reagan, I believe in America is a land of opportunities and for those willing to dream to work.
But, in California those dreams are being crushed by higher taxes and regulations.
As your Assemblyman, I will fight to rein in government, protect Proposition 13 and bring jobs and opportunities back to California.
The California Republican Assembly (CRA) held their convention this weekend at Knott’s Berry Farm Hotel in Buena Park with the theme “Expect the Impossible!” The organization with numerous of local units up and down the state is known as “The conscience of the Republican Party”.
The AD-55 contest took three rounds as delegates considered between trio candidates: Walnut-Valley School Board Trustee Phillip Chen, Diamond Bar Councilmembers Steve Tye and Ling-Ling Chang.
Ling-Ling Chang was knocked out in the first round. Then, it boiled down two more rounds between Phillip Chen and Steve Tye.
Phillip Chen won the necessary 2/3rds endorsement in the third round over Steve Tye by a vote of 29-14.
Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 2, 2012
CRA has really stepped up their game this year thanks to OC Political author and CRA State Vice-President Craig Alexander. Take a look at this awesome slate mailer that went out throughout Orange County to voters. It is formatted like a newspaper with a list of endorsements and some advertisements.
In February of this year the Orange County Republican Party (“OCGOP”) voted to endorse several incumbent Congressmen for re-election. One of the incumbents seeking that endorsement was Congressman John Campbell. As an elected member of the OCGOP I was entitled to a vote and to voice my opinion on the subject. I spoke out against that endorsement and voted No.
This was the first time the OCGOP was doing endorsements for partisan offices since the passage of the terrible “Top Two Primary” of Proposition 14. Prior to passage of Prop. 14, the official party did not endorse in partisan races such as Congress. But Prop. 14 has forced the Republican Party to do so and the OCGOP is the official arm of the Party in Orange County.
The tipping point for me regarding Congressman Campbell was the December 2010 lame duck Congress’ vote to repeal the military’s policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (“DADT”) regarding active homosexuals serving in the military. Prior to this vote I was becoming troubled with Congressman Campbell’s vote in favor of TARP and Cash for Clunkers and his abstaining on the vote to bailout the auto industry. When Congressman Campbell 1st ran for Congress in a special election, I was one of those who supported him by helping him obtain the endorsement of the California Republican Assembly and walking precincts for him. Until the most recent re-districting, I lived inside Mr. Campbell’s congressional district. Seeing him vote with the lame duck Democrats for the repeal of DADT was a shock and disappointment.
As a former U.S. Marine (1975 – 1978), I understand something about serving in the military including what I consider very severe challenges to service members’ 1st amendment rights of freedom of religion and free speech due to this change in policy. Almost immediately I wrote a letter to Congressman Campbell advising him that I did not agree with his vote, that as a former member of the military I felt I had some legitimate concerns over the implications of the repeal of DADT for those serving our country in the armed forces and I asked to meet with him to discuss this.
For over one year Congressman Campbell knew of my request (according to his District Director) but never would meet with me. At the OCGOP meeting in February I asked him to explain his vote to repeal DADT and why he would not meet with me, one of his supporters and constituents. Congressman Campbell stated to the members and guests of the OCGOP that he felt his vote was right partially due to information he, as a Congressman, had that we constituents did not have (can we spell arrogance!). He then went on to state several other things he has done as a Congressman that he was proud of – without once explaining why he would not meet with me (in his oral response to my questions he did not even acknowledge me or my letter to him on the DADT subject).
Almost immediately following this, Bill Dunlap (an OCGOP alternate) rose and asked Congressman Campbell why he is never in the District to meet with constituents or hold town hall meetings (bravo Bill!). The Congressman’s only response was that he feels his mass e-mails to his e-mail list is sufficient. I guess that means to the Congressman that face-to-face contact with voters in his District is not only not important but also not needed.
I am not important in this matter. What is important is a person who is supposed to be a representative in Congress who refuses to meet with a constituent on an important public policy issue. In my opinion that is not a proper attitude for a Congressman. Congressman Campbell did not lose my vote for endorsement – he did not earn it. Congressman Campbell fell short of the two thirds votes necessary for him to receive the OCGOP endorsement (He was later able to obtain the endorsement of the CRP when the executive board met privately).
For those who live in the new 45th Congressional District, as you consider who to vote for in the June 5, 2012 election, I offer you this information for your consideration. If I lived in the 45th District I would cast my vote for Republican John Webb.
Excluding the Anaheim TOT mail (which has nothing to do with the June election), I received my fifth mailer of the primary election cycle yesterday. The first mailer was from Congressman Ed Royce’s campaign on April 4, the second one was from Todd Spitzer’s campaign for the Third Supervisorial District on April 19, the third one was another Royce piece on April 28, the fourth one was another Spitzer piece on May 1. This mailer is the third I’ve received from Spitzer’s campaign, and the fifth I’ve received from any campaign this cycle.
This piece is obviously geared toward Republican voters.
The side with the address label has the two-star Republican elephant along with a large font highlighting Spitzer’s “Local Elected Official of the Year” award 12 years ago from the OCGOP. It also has a picture of Spitzer with OCGOP Chairman Scott Baugh. “Todd Spitzer” is the largest font on the page, is part of his campaign logo, and is repeated again in the caption under the picture with Baugh, thereby repeating his name thrice as a way to reinforce name ID even among voters who won’t flip the piece over to read the other side (I guess technically it’s four times since the paid for by message has his name, but that’s in the fine print).
The other side of the piece emphasizes conservative Republican values. It includes a big CRA logo (with the official three-star Republican elephant) highlighting Spitzer’s CRA endorsement, including a quote from CRA Vice President (and OC Political blogger) Craig Alexander. The piece also includes bullet points listing Republican stances on taxes, pensions, and crime, along with Spitzer’s membership on the Republican Central Committee and “A” rating from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This side of the piece also repeats Spitzer’s name in large type thrice, again reinforcing name ID even among voters who won’t read the piece and who received the piece in the mail with the address/postage side face down.
A subtle touch is the photo which has a clearly visible North Orange County Conservative Coalition logo on the banner behind Spitzer at the speech he was giving. A casual reader might not notice the logo. It does, however, catch the eye of anyone who recognizes the logo.
This is the first mailer from any campaign in quite a while that doesn’t include the needless logos that I admonished campaigns about in this post.
This is the first Spitzer mailer I’ve received that isn’t a four-pager that opens up. This is a two-sided 8.5″ x 11″ piece.
In a shocking defeat for real conservatives, the good ole boys seized the endorsement of the CRA for their big-government retread, Todd Spitzer.
Hope for conservatives got a bit bleaker as the special interests gained control of the group that is supposed to be the conscience of the Republican Party. In the Board of Supervisors race, Deborah Pauly is the only proven limited government, fiscal conservative who will represent the people, but in a perversion of Republican ideals, the CRA endorsed career politician Spitzer, who is in bed with the unions.
In this David and Goliath battle, Pauly is the true conservative and special-interest Spitzer is the candidate of the unions. He is a RINO and backed costly pension deals when he was previously a Supervisor. He will not cut the size of local government or reform pensions because he’s one of the guys who caused Orange County’s three-billion-dollar unfunded pension liabilities!
Special-interest Spitzer is slick and polished. He’s a very connected career politician who’s part of the good ole boys who run Orange County.
The time is ripe to save Orange Coutny from the career politicians who are bought and paid for to do the bidding of their masters who cram their campaign bank accounts with tens of thousands of special interest dollars.
The CRA missed its chance, but the people know the truth. They will not allow Orange County to be raped by the special interests gorging at the public trough.
In a victory for civility over coercion and conservativism over fringe elements, the California Republican Assembly endorsed Todd Spitzer over Deborah Pauly in an amazing upset.
Pauly could not conduct herself with dignity at the CRA endorsing meeting. Her campaign strategy is simple: attack Spitzer and hope that no one sees she does not have the experience or temperament to be an Orange County Supervisor. On the other hand, Spitzer has the qualities necessary to work with others as a team, work with others to solve problems, and work with others for Orange County. Spitzer clearly demonstrated this attitude and perspective during the CRA endorsing meeting: Pauly is a divider; Spitzer brings people together with dignity and respect to carry Orange County forward.
Pauly spoke about her role in forming the Orange-Villa Park CRA unit while Spitzer is the only candidate who is currently a member of his local CRA unit: Orange-Villa Park. Why isn’t Pauly still in the Orange-Villa Park CRA unit?
As a long-time CRA activist, shouldn’t the endorsement have been a shoo-in for Pauly? It’s clear the people who know her best know she does not have the qualities to be an Orange County Supervisor, which is why the CRA backed Spitzer in an upset for the endorsement.
The more Pauly spoke, the more support she lost. In the first round, Spitzer led Pauly 14-6-2. In the second round, Pauly lost half her supporters and one of the neutral voters went to Spitzer, giving him the endorsement 18-3-1.
Why is that? It’s simple: the CRA allowed each candidate to speak for a minute before the second round of voting, and in her speech, Pauly decided to threaten the CRA. When she’s trying to persuade an organization to support her, she resorts to threats. This is the same way she conducts herself in meetings. If she’s threatening people to get an endorsement, imagine what she’d do on the Board of Supervisors!
The CRA is the largest and most conservative grassroots organization in the state and represents the everyday values of conservative voters. This proves that Spitzer is the conservative candidate, and Pauly is just a fringe candidate.
OC Political 