California Republican Party - Leadership Journal

High Speed Rail: A Barometer for Green Jobs?

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:18:00 +0000

As seen in RedCounty.com

A majority of Californians have woken up to the fact that the High Speed Rail plan they were duped into supporting three years ago is an unrealistic, overpriced boondoggle. Instead of the affordable, job-creating, cutting edge panacea they were promised, they've since come to realize HSR is going to cost a lot more than advertised, and it's promised jobs will cost our economy more money than they produce. That's also true of the much touted "green economy" on which California's Democrats have placed all bets on our state's economic future. One can only look forward to the day a majority of Californians will similarly wake up and realize they're being sold a similar bill of goods.

For years, independent analysts insisted that the true cost of a HSR system between Los Angeles and San Francisco would cost much more than the $33 billion voters were told in 2009 by HSR's nine-member board. After years of delays and denials, the board's own revised business plan pegs even its now scaled-down HSR system will cost at least $98.5 billion. This cold blast of reality has rightfully turned Californians against the project. A recent Field Poll shows a solid majority of Californians would reject HSR if it were presented to them for a vote today.

This short-circuiting of expectations for HSR and the public's response provides us an excellent societal barometer for predicting the demise of California's admirable but perhaps naive faith in the green jobs panacea. Obviously, research and development into alternate energy systems is very important-- no one is arguing against that. But what's been missing in the green jobs frenzy, just as was missing for too many years in the HSR debate, is an honest appraisal of the cost and the sustainability of green jobs, especially while California’s economy not only continues to struggle, but also lags behind the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, Democrat Governor Jerry Brown not only remains convinced that High Speed Rail must proceed, he's just as equally enamored of all things green. Faced with the prospect of how to restore the two million jobs California lost during the Great Recession, he's charging full speed ahead with his agenda to wring green prosperity out of the Golden State by regulations and edicts, even though there's never been an example of any economy, anywhere, at any time throughout the history of man, that has grown and expanded by mandate of government.

The non-partisan Brookings institute released a report a few months ago which shows green technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more, just 2.2 percent, in Silicon Valley. The same study also shows that Silicon Valley's green sector actually lost 492 jobs between 2003 to 2010. Brown is putting all of California's eggs into the green jobs basket, even while his own estimates include a total increase of only 500,000 green jobs statewide in the next nine years, and we have nothing more than his promise that such will occur.

In 2008, Californians voted in favor of High Speed Rail, but provided with new information they are now ready to make a new decision. In 2010, Californians rejected Proposition 23, a common sense suspension of AB32, the green economy regulatory scheme. As that scheme unfolds, Californians will see for themselves the price of, well, just about everything increases. They'll come to realize that the green jobs "created" by regulation and mandate came only at a cost to every other sector of our economy. They will see California continue to lag behind the rest of the U.S., even while Jerry Brown and his fellow bureaucrats insist their failure is nothing more than proof that they haven't done enough.

One can only wonder when the public will tire of, and revolt against, the empty rhetoric. One can only wonder what new collection of information will be enough to jolt them to the simple truth that once again, they've been sold a bill of goods. California needs jobs of all kinds, not just green jobs. When it comes to jobs and the economy, we owe it to ourselves to be color-blind.

Governor Brown has promised 500,000 green jobs by the end of the decade, but so far, we’ve seen nothing to indicate that those jobs may become reality. By now, the public should be expressly tired of empty rhetoric. And, Brown should be colorblind when it comes to jobs; Californians just want jobs, they don't care what color they are.

Is This What You Really Wanted?

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Fri, 20 May 2011 16:11:00 +0000

Dear Californians: Is this what you wanted when you put the Democrats in power? Really?

There’s no arguing that California is a blue state. Most Californians embrace what Democrats like to sell. Even though they typically deliver a lot more sizzle than steak, Democrats talk the good talk when it comes to good schools, environmental protections, and helping the poor.

All those are laudable goals. But while talking the talk about what Californians want to hear, Democrats have been successfully implementing a very different agenda during the four decades they’ve been in charge of government in Sacramento. In the name of producing good schools, they’ve created a top heavy education bureaucracy with some of the highest paid, but least accountable teachers in the world. While touting environmental protection, they’ve created an unresponsive, red-tape wielding maze of agencies and permits and regulations that kill jobs and needlessly cost consumers. In the name of helping those who can’t help themselves, they’ve built a service-delivery army that now perseveres even while those who depend on those services go wanting.

This didn’t happen overnight. It’s been creeping up on us for more than 40 years, not coincidentally, the same period the Democrats have enjoyed a nearly uninterrupted streak of legislative dominance. It’s time for some perspective on how far California’s state government has wandered off track while Democrats have been running the show.

Traditionally, state governments are pretty much the boring, stable relatives of the high-falutin’ federal government with its civil rights laws and national defense and stick-it-to-the-man environmental protections. Local governments can have their own flash too, and it’s not that big a deal when they announce they’re going to be a sanctuary city or impose a living wage laws, as long as the buses run fairly regularly and the cops show up when your house is broken into.

State government isn’t what most people think of when it comes to the in-your-face issues of our daily lives. State government is about highways, and water projects and weights and measures. Stuff we count on, but kind of take for granted.
Taking care of the basics is what state government does best. You know, the boring stuff we rightfully pay people to take care of so we don’t have to bother with it. It’s even forgivable when state government politicians can’t help themselves and start to dabble in social issues, as long as they also take care of the basics.

Which brings us up to date here in California. Governors come and Governors go, and they do what they can, but in California, the real power of state government resides in the legislature. And even in the days before Willie Brown appointed himself the Ayatollah of the Assembly, the state legislature has been dominated by Democrats. And it’s during that last 40 years or so that California’s state government has veered wildly off track, regulating, or attempting to regulate, more and more of how society operates, while conveniently ignoring the mess they’ve made handling their basic responsibilities.

Four decades of Democrats dominating state government, and we have:
A dysfunctional education system so broken that a Stanford University study five years ago declared so bad it would be pointless to give it more money until fundamental reforms are put in place.

An insufficient water supply for food, industry, or our growing population
Crumbling roadways, and mass transit programs statewide shutting down or limiting routes and schedules.

A bloated state government bureaucracy filled with redundant and inefficient systems.
An unsustainable pension system that’s soon going to require more money for ex-workers than those employees actually on the job.

California voters, is this really what you wanted when you voted for that politician with the D next to his name? Do you really agree with Democratic Speaker of the Assembly John Perez when says we have to raise taxes, or else government employees will lose their job? Do you really support our Governor Jerry Brown when he cuts billions to schools and support programs and medical care for the elderly and disabled, then gives prison guards a raise? Do these sound like the actions of people who take their job of managing our state government responsibly, or do these seem more the likes of those who focus on political solutions, when they should be fixing our budget solutions.

There’s an old joke about the man whose wife walks in when he’s in bed with his lover. “Who are you going to believe,” he protests? “Me, or your own eyes?” How many more years of abject failure by our Democrat-dominated state government will it take before Californians start believing their own eyes, and demand a responsible alternative to a four decade legacy of failure?

Compton School Fight

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:14:00 +0000

The parents of the city of Compton realize what many of us have understood for so long – teachers' unions sabotage the futures of children who unfortunately have no choice in where they receive their education. Teachers' unions would rather have parents believe that a school’s failure is completely inadvertent, and more times than not, a lack of resources and parental involvement are the chief conspirators in collusion to derail children from the education they truly deserve.

I’m amazed that our state's finest teachers haven’t thought of a way to fix those problems. Better still, it is surprising that unions are fighting the very group of people who ultimately pay their salaries…parents. Teachers' unions often boast themselves as stalwart allies of parents in a constant battle with conservative lawmakers who desperately want to “defund” public schools. Every effort to establish some sort of connection between student performance and teacher evaluation is met with hostility. Teachers unions would like us to believe that there are so many mitigating circumstances affecting student performance that it totally absolves them from being looked at with a magnifying glass. Truthfully, teachers' unions are quite comfortable staying in that gray area, because once those clouds of gray start to dissolve, they know parents like the ones in Compton can see the sun in the horizon and demand a better education for their child.

Failing public schools serve as a catalyst for the unemployment and desolate conditions that often become a mainstay in many inner city environments, and it will remain that way because the teachers' unions are using the backs of inner city children and families as political collateral. Parents have grown weary of sending their children to school and seeing the same results with the same excuses regurgitated over and over again. California’s parent trigger law empowers parents to transform a failing public school into a charter school, replace staff and provide new leadership, or replace the current principal with a qualified and results proven innovator. What’s happening in Compton is an epic battle for the future of our children. Our children don’t owe anything to unions; their debt was paid by those who paved the way for them to have access to a brighter future.

This is clearly a time for California where efficiency must know no exemptions.

If teachers' unions and liberals really believe in the people, then why is there such a prolific battle to stop parents from having the right to send their children to the school that is best able to foster their natural abilities and provide them with the tools to facilitate their success? Because it is never really about the students for the lot of teachers' unions, it is about protecting the system and their own interests. Many are afraid to say it, but teaching has become a fall-back profession; it isn’t the profession which many go into with that sense of community, given that liberals and teachers' unions often esteem their community as the number one reason for going into teaching. Our schools are failing miserably, in fact, to the point where teachers are scarce and the state has to incentivize a career option where the true enticement is supposed to be the potential to impact a life.

Putting the community first is a mindset that liberals have laid claim to. Now is the time to see if they can defend that territory or show that they’ve been too inundated with public union-backed messages to understand why they do what it is they do. The whole state of California is closely watching the developments in Compton to see who will win the battle to save these failing schools – the parents or the unions.

You can reach Micah at mgrant@cagop.org

Jerry Brown’s Budget Proposal: A Union-First Budget

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:44:00 +0000

Yesterday, Democrat Governor Jerry Brown unveiled his much anticipated budget proposal, which calls for some much needed cuts, and as expected, a plea to again extend the temporary tax hikes set to expire in June. Judging from some of the feedback from the press, many see the spending cuts as Jerry's reasoned efforts to close the budget gap, and show that Brown is willing to take on his own party. But a closer look reveals that Jerry's stated choice between draconian cuts or more taxes is a false dichotomy. It conveniently takes attention from the real battle, the battle between the taxpayers and the state's entrenched bureaucracy.

Brown has preposterously proposed to enact over $60 billion dollars in new taxes over the next 5 years, or as he’d like to have us believe, California will soon mirror a scene from Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend.

It's disappointing that Governor Brown isn’t addressing the structural problems that make up California’s deep $28.5 billion dollar deficit. Public employee unions are driving the state to fiscal insolvency right before our eyes, and yet he continues to evade the problem. This becomes clearer after flipping through a couple of pages of Brown’s proposal. As they say, the devil is in the details. Look at this information, taken from the Governor's own summary of his budget proposal:

Spending reductions proposed by Governor Brown for services:

1. $1.7 billion to Medi-Cal.
2. $1.5 billion to California’s welfare-to-work program (CalWORKs).
3. $750 million to the Department of Developmental Services.
4. $500 million to the University of California.
5. $500 million to California State University.

That’s roughly $5 billion in cuts to services provided by the state's taxpayers. In contrast, here are the cuts proposed by Brown for state government operations:

1. $200 million through a variety of actions, including reorganizations, consolidations and other efficiencies.
2. 10 percent reduction in take-home pay for state employees not currently covered under collective bargaining agreements.

Do you see the difference? Billions in cuts to those receiving services, but only scant millions in cuts to state bureaucrats. This, more than anything else, tells us all we need to know about who Brown really favors.

Also missing from Brown's budget formula? How about some long-overdue pension reform? The truth be told, Brown would rather raise taxes on millions of hard working Californians still reeling from the effects of the recession, rather than pick a fight with his own party and its government union masters. He's willing to throw the blind, elderly and disabled under the wheels of the bus rather than tell his campaign contributors they're going to have to learn how to make do with less. Brown said during his campaign for governor that we have to “pull together…as Californians first.” Brown’s refusal to address the structural inefficiencies with our system of government makes it obvious that its still "government first," and he's beholden to the public employee unions.

Jerry Brown’s budget proposal is a budget designed to protect the government class, not the people.

You can reach Micah @ mgrant@cagop.org

Playing Chess for the Sake of the Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:58:00 +0000

When it comes to communications, President Barack Obama is considered by many to be a chess grand master; the President’s mastery of language, sophisticated delivery, and Pierce Brosnan-like style display a complex rhetorical presence that admittedly wins over people that aren’t politically informed. Well, the chessboard has now shifted from a one-dimensional surface to a three-dimensional nightmare for the President, where the Democrats who are tasked with protecting the agenda of their leader have staged a coup d’état, and have politely told the president, “No thanks,” clearing the way for Republicans to say “checkmate.”

President Obama’s grandstanding culminated Friday, with Uncle Bill flying in to save the day again, offering his advice for how he handled the Republican shellacking he took in ’94. Obama, during the press conference with Bill Clinton, awkwardly stepped back into the shadows, hands clasped together cumbersomely, and allowed former president Clinton to take over the podium, the very podium which prominently displays the Great Seal of the President of the United States. After just 10 minutes, Obama decided that the audience was in “good hands” with Clinton, abruptly darted out a back door, and off to a Christmas party with Madame Obama.

So who exactly is the President here, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? My belief is that Obama would actually prefer for Clinton to be President right now. Who would have thought that the master of allure would need a charismatic bailout? Instead of bringing his party together to collaborate with Republicans, Obama has upset his base, derided Republicans for trying to keep money in everyone’s pockets during a recession, and doesn’t want to deal with the flack he is receiving.

I maybe hallucinating here, but this isn’t the prudent communications strategist that was elected President in 2008, or is it? Before Republicans start rejoicing over the possibility of a Democrat catch 22, keep in mind that this could be a trap! This could be another strategic chess move by Obama to appear to be a shining knight to the pawns, who he’ll tell in 2012 he fought his own party for the sake of the bill (pun intended), all in an effort to remain “King”. Obama’s decision to allow Clinton to be President Pro-Tempore looked feeble, ill-conceived, and discouraging to Democrats. But is it just a set-up to get Democrats on board to work with Republicans? Because Bill Clinton arguably is still a likeable figure, the president could merely be taking a hit to his image to pacify his Democrat base, while at the same time setting up the narrative in 2012, that he fought his own party. Brilliant!

Or am I giving the President too much credit? You decide.

Lesson Learned - Back to the Basics

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 18:00:00 +0000

Two weeks ago, the California GOP and many other California Republicans anxiously waited for the polls to close and for most television outlets to project massive gains for the GOP throughout the state of California. California press however, didn’t share the same sense of enthusiasm. Weeks prior to the election, the liberal mainstream press in California, had already begun writing the narrative that the Republican wave would crash with a resounding thud against the Sierra Mountains.

Much to the chagrin of the CRP, unfortunately, the press turned out to be correct.

What the media missed, however, is the herculean effort from California Democrats to fortify the border in fear of a Republican resurgence. This election cycle was doused with desperation for democrats as they needed to rely on five fundraising visits from President Barack Obama, non-stop campaigning from former president Bill Clinton, mindless Joe Biden speeches, and an appearance from the creator-of-the-internet Al Gore. Democrats had to use more resources this election cycle than they have ever used before to keep the GOP from pulling out an upset. Quite frankly that says a whole lot.

Internally, the CRP still had a good year, registering a record number of new GOP voters, closing the gap between registered Democrats and Republicans, flipping San Diego County back to a GOP majority, getting Sam Blakeslee elected to the State Senate in a district where the Democrats have a 6 point registration advantage and where Obama won by 20 points in 2008, and presenting the most diverse statewide ticket in the party's history.

But in the end, it means nothing unless our party begins the long, steady process of reaching into communities where the Democrats traditionally enjoy an advantage. It begins with a simple message:

Democrats believe in government, Republicans believe in you.

Republicans believe in your right to hold the government accountable. We believe in your tenacity, your resolve in times of misery, and your personal integrity. We believe you have the right to send your children to the school that is going to best foster their natural abilities, and provide them with the tools that will help facilitate their success. We believe whether you are Black, White, Hispanic, or all of the above, you are the stuff that presidents are made of.

If we want to win, I believe we need to get back to those basic principles.

The CRP launched an impressive Networks program mid-election cycle but the outreach efforts should be more sustainable and more immense. Recently, our candidate for Secretary of State, Damon Dunn, was speaking at the California College Republican convention in Los Angeles this past summer, and asked several minorities in the crowd, “When is the last time a Republican knocked on your door introduced himself, and just talked with you?”

As you may have guessed, the silence that ensued parallels the silence after Jesus said “Peace be still.” No one could answer the question. Ultimately, when we minorities across the state can answer that question with confidence, the party will be in far better shape.

So, my fellow Republicans, trust that the lesson has been learned. We need to get back to the basics, back to our Reagan principles, and accept what I call "diversity of the same opinion." Believe me, I know this isn’t easy, and it will take a monumental effort to make the changes that I have suggested. But rest assured that the CRP is already putting the plans together to be a stronger, more diverse, and more effective party in 2012.

You can reach Micah at mgrant@cagop.org

Your Turn

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:14:00 +0000

This morning, the RNC released a video entitled "Your Turn," emphasizing the need for Republicans to do all they can to get out the vote for the upcoming midterm elections.

The video speaks for itself:

Pass along to your friends!

The Audacity of Audacity

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:06:00 +0000

President Barack Obama’s strategy to fix America’s ailing economy can be accurately described with the following sentence:

When all else fails, double down.

Obama’s half-baked plan to pump another $50 billion in new stimulus money into old infrastructure is deceptive; marketing this package by highlighting the purported incentive of a tax write-off, known as a bonus depreciation, is a political farce designed to increase Obama’s popularity with Republicans and the small business owners who are struggling to survive this horrible economic climate.

Small business owners aren’t investing in new plant equipment because they don’t need the additional capacity, not because of the cost of equipment. Consumers aren’t pining to spend money because they are more focused on paying off credit cards and mortgages. There simply isn’t enough demand for goods right now to justify business owners upgrading their operations. The promise of shiny new equipment won’t be enough to bait small business owners into falling for this latest stimulus exercise. In the end, an upgrade is aesthetically pleasing, but I can guarantee the bottom line will evoke a gut-wrenching reaction.

Besides, the write-off that is being pushed as an economic necessity already exists, and has existed since roughly 2003, and it didn’t cause a sudden increase in capital spending.

As far as I can tell, this behemoth of a bill contains some pretty misleading numbers. There are $200 billion in capital investments in this proposal, an additional $100 billion for permanently extending the research and development tax credit, another $50 billion in up-front infrastructure spending, and a $30 billion small business lending fund. I bet you are thinking, “Wow, that's $380 billion dollars!” Wrong. The research and development tax gets extended every year, and like every other bill the administration has pitched, it will be paid for on the back end.

Call it "the audacity of audacity."

The Obama administration has already been given the chance to bring their promise of change to the American people. Their agenda of more taxes, increased regulations, and mandates obviously isn’t working. This stimulus bill shows an appalling disconnect between the Obama administration, small business owners and the will of the people.

I admire the president’s audacity…trying to shape this additional stimulus package as an offer Republican’s can’t refuse simply because the phrase “tax write-off” is included in the dregs of the bill takes some chutzpah. Unfortunately, that is the only thing that I admire about this $50 billion dollar political exercise--the president has the audacity to pitch it…again.

At this point, what else can the White House do? The looming Republican takeover of the House draws nigh, and his approval rating is sinking faster than a concrete bagel. I guess he is banking on sly marketing, clever slogans, and Reggie Bush-like evasiveness to sneak this latest boondoggle through. Not this time.

Despite turbulent economic times, Americans did not call for the rapid expansion of government; rather, they asked for a sensible solution to create balanced budgets, make the necessary cuts, and an easier way for people like you and me to do business without a bunch of unnecessary bureaucratic processes. Instead we are given a regurgitated and refurbished stimulus bill that no one wants. Now, that's what I call "audacity."

You can reach Micah at mgrant@cagop.org

You Can't Spend What You Don't Have

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:15:00 +0000

It’s been over a month since the beginning of the fiscal year and California still doesn’t have a budget. As the prospect for passing a sensible budget before the end of the year continues to vanish, Sacramento Democrats refuse to include the pension reform that this state so desperately needs. If you aren’t rankled by bloated bureaucratic salaries and state pensions large enough to rival that of the NFL’s compensation packages, then I guess we all should turn our heads the other way and continue to accept the unacceptable.

California can’t afford the reckless spending that has plagued our economy for decades, and this time the unions will have to give. Working families can’t afford the suggested tax increases, and borrowing more money when California’s credit rating is already in the tank, doesn’t make much sense either. Why can’t the Democrat controlled legislature understand that its citizenry has already been taxed to the point of exhaustion? Apparently it must not matter to them. They just don't get that you can’t spend what you don’t have.

The union grip over the capitol is greater than I had imagined – union cronies will stop at nothing to prove you wrong and attempt to squeeze blood out of a turnip by refusing to compromise. I’m not sure I understand how anyone can be exempt from tightening their belts. Most sensible Californian’s have already made the necessary adjustments to their spending habits, but I fear that this is just the quiet before the storm – eventually, no matter how much you prepare, the next round of taxes increases will push you and other hard working tax-paying families to the brink of extinction.

The union stall on the budget process reminds me of this scene from the movie Click, where Adam Sandler tries to convince David Hasslehoff to give him a raise, because he “spent money [he doesn’t] have.”

Coming up with a sensible budget is no easy task (it should be but unions are involved)but not having a budget this late is outrageous. The common sense solution that most Californians are looking for is simple -- pension reform. I for one am tired of the Democrat knee-jerk reaction to tax and spend. We deserve better than that.

you can reach Micah @ mgrant@cagop.org.

The NAACP: Desperate to be Relevant

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:39:00 +0000

What is going on with the folks who run the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? These days, it seems like they’re more concerned with making headlines than they are advancing anything. Let me cite three recent examples. They adopted a resolution to condemn the racist elements of the Tea Party movement. The California chapter of the NAACP came out in favor of a ballot measure to legalize marijuana. And that same chapter’s president, Alice Huffman, has supported studying whether to convert Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch into a state park. It’s not clear to me how any of these actions follow the NAACP’s mission statement to “eliminate racial hatred and discrimination.”

Let’s start with the Tea Party resolution. This would make sense if there was any clear indication that the Tea Party movement is indeed racist at its core. But I’m struggling to understand why the NAACP seems intent on framing the Tea Party movement in racist terms. If any organization should have a fundamental understanding of civil unrest, it should be the NAACP, right?

It’s not surprising that the mainstream media is salivating over the prospect of labeling the Tea Party movement as racist, but I’ve been to more than one Tea Party event, and felt not one inkling of racist motivation or intent among the people attending. From everything I see, the Tea Party movement is about reducing taxes, checking federal government efforts to skirt the Constitution, and identify waste and fraud. How is that racist?

Ironically, by focusing on the still evolving Tea Party movement, the NAACP seems to be turning into the same thing it’s historically fought against, labeling people it simply doesn’t understand.

In fact, by passing an anti Tea Party resolution, the NAACP is implying it has transcended racism, that its members are beyond racist thought and action, flawlessly objective. So how would the NAACP react if another organization passed a resolution condemning the racist elements of the NAACP? How would its members feel if they were lumped into the same category as the National Black Panther Party? I have no doubt that if I were to start looking, I could find a line in the NAACP bylaws, or one person holding a race-tinged sign at an NAACP rally, then exploit that image to garner national headlines and tar the good works of the NAACP.

Unfortunately, that’s all the Tea Party resolution amounts to.

My same concern extends to the California chapter of the NCAAP and its ludicrous arguments in favor of legalizing marijuana. If anyone should aware of the rampage and mayhem illicit drugs have caused in the African-American community, it should be the NAACP. Instead of continuing attempts to curb the amount of drug use that goes on in poorer urban environments, the NAACP has decided that it is more convenient to focus on minority arrest rates. But regardless of how they spin their concern, legal or illegal, marijuana is a damaging, mind-altering substance. Making it legal will just lead to more drug abuse, the last thing the African-American community needs or can ever afford.

And then to cap it off, California NAACP President Alice Huffman went on record this week supporting a proposal to covert Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch into a state park. I admire Michael’s artistic contributions to American pop culture. But California is in a budget crisis. People need jobs and good schools, and clean safe parks in our own communities right now. This act, perhaps more than any other, indicates the desperation of the NAACP’s leadership to crowd into a news cycle and show to everyone that it’s still there, that it still counts.

I am truly saddened by this direction of the NAACP. Instead of providing solutions to problems, it’s promoting weak, ill-conceived, misguided resolutions that echo the same dark-age philosophies and attitudes the organization was founded to overcome.

You can reach Micah Grant at mgrant@cagop.org

A Modest Revenue Proposal

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Griffith) — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:29:00 +0000

As seen in FlashReport.org

“California Lawmakers Consider License Plates that Flash Ads”-- Los Angeles Times, June 29th, 2010

Earlier this week, the Assembly Transportation Committee voted unanimously to pass along a bill authorizing to study whether selling advertising space on digitally-changeable license plates could produce enough money to help close California’s multi-billion dollar budget deficit. Which begs the question: why stop there? If, after decades of Democrat-dominated malfeasance, the state is so broke it’s actually considering the financial merits of placing what are essentially millions of little flat screen televisions on the backs of moving vehicles, our government has obviously lost all sense of perspective.

After all, if we’re willing to add millions of little distractions to our roadways in the quest for new state revenues, can big distractions be far behind? And if we’re seriously contemplating selling our license plates, why not the Full Monty? Let’s put every available money-making idea on the table. Go big or go broke, is what I say.

So how about this: how about special projectors that turn your auto’s entire rear window into a rolling billboard? Unlike the license plate proposal, rear window ads wouldn’t force drivers to look down while they take their eyes off the road to check out the two-for-one sale at the local nursery.

And why stop with vehicles? There are any number of state-owned edifices advertisers must surely be slathering over to potentially hawk their wares. For instance, how about projecting ads onto one of those big prison walls on Alcatraz? What a thrill that would add for tourists visiting San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf. How about adding strings of programmable LED’s onto the Golden Gate Bridge? Tourists flying into Bay Area airports could catch up on the latest rental car specials, provided those lingering San Francisco sunsets don’t spoil their view.

Closer to home for lawmakers, what’s good for the goose is no doubt good for the gander. You know those state-owned vehicles our lawmakers drive at taxpayer expense? Why not shrink wrap those cars, cloaking them in the same sort of ads we see on city buses? In fact, why stop with lawmakers? I’ll bet there’s a hefty sponsorship contract tailor-made for the thousands of state owned vehicles now used for “official business.”

Getting back to Sacramento, there’s product placement opportunities galore inside the state capitol. Imagine the pride of escorting our out-of state residents on a tour that includes the Senate and Assembly galleries, as we gaze down on the traditional red and green carpets. Only now, those carpets would be embossed with the logo for a cleaning product, the “Official Stain Lifter of the California Legislature!”

And why stop with inanimate objects when there’s potentially 120 walking billboards in the form of state lawmakers. Really, what’s the harm in dressing our legislators in suits and dresses plastered with sponsor patches like a NASCAR racing suit? I don’t see a down side, not when there’s a perennial budget problem and our children’s future is at stake.

Or--and here’s the really crazy idea—how about our state lawmakers actually make an effort to operate the state within its current means. You know, the way the rest of us manage the accounts of our own homes and businesses. Instead of constantly concocting new methods to fill government coffers, they could look for ways to stretch our existing tax revenues. It might not be enough to close California’s $20 billion budget gap, but it would be a good start, even though it’s a process our Democrat-dominated legislature has consistently taken pains to avoid. And it’s definitely a better idea than posting ads where license plates belong.

You can reach Rob Griffith at rgriffith@cagop.org

Clash of the Titans

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:07:00 +0000

California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring earlier this week dropped by the Sacramento Press Club to deliver a routine update of California’s political landscape and discuss the historic diversity of the Republican party ticket.

His Democrat counterpart John Burton was also invited to the event which is summarized in an article from Cal Buzz.

Highlights from the event include Chairman Nehring delivering a humorous yet poignant summary of the Democrat top ticket:

“When Boxer was first elected to Congress in 1982, ‘The A-Team’ was a TV show and not in a movie, and I think Jerry Brown’s registration card was in Roman numerals.”

Nice one chairman…nice one.

You Scratch My Back, and I’ll Ignore Yours

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:54:00 +0000

Democrats in Sacramento have made it abundantly clear that they aren’t being held accountable for their actions, and they like it like that. The Democrat-dominated legislature has once again missed its budget deadline, even while a $19.5 billion deficit looms overhead.

The Democrats are a relying on their lack of accountability to glide around the budget. But the truth of the matter is these legislators are supposed to be our public servants. They’re supposed to be working for us, not the other way around. California’s economic plight has been a reality check; most responsible citizens have made the necessary cutbacks, tightened our belts, and have become much more fiscally responsible.

So why is there such an outcry when we expect our public servants to do the same thing? The simple answer is, Democrats and the state worker unions have been in bed together for so long, they’ve forgotten anybody else is in the room. They’ve forgotten why we, the people who hired them and put them in Sacramento to serve the people, to protect the common good, to exercise wisdom, restraint and responsibility especially in times of distress.

Apparently, Sacramento Democrats have lost the statesman mentality.

Statesmen are elected officials who exhibit a quality of selflessness, the spirit of caring for the whole. But that’s not the image that comes to mind when I think of Sacramento Democrats. All I see from Democrats today is runaway spending, the call to implement more taxes, more empty promises, and long winded speeches full of excuses but devoid of solutions.

It is time we hold the majority party accountable for the government they’ve made unaffordable for you and me. If millions of Californians can cut back expenses and still carry on, so can state government. No one should be exempt from saving the state and keeping it from becoming the next Greece. But this is going to be tough. As bed partners, Democrats and unions have poisoned the state’s work force to believe they’re entitled to regularly scheduled raises and pay increases. Yes, I said entitled.

You should know that for the average state worker, a raise is something drastically different from a cost of living increase. For most of us, a raise is something we earn. For state workers, it’s something fought for by their hired thugs at the bargaining table. For them, a raise should be automatic, that they’re losing money if they don’t get one. And the grip they have on the Democratic lawmakers who ratify their union contracts is tighter than a Bob Etheridge headlock. The instant anyone tries to draw a connection between getting a raise and increased productivity, the Democrats become more charmingly evasive than a used car salesman.

I can’t take that ride.

It’s about time Democrats ask themselves what THEY can do for their state, not what their state can do for them. Everyone is responsible for California; Democrats are no exception to the rule.

'Who Are You' Going to Believe, Me or Your Own Eyes?

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:55:00 +0000

U.S. Representative Bob Etheridge (D-NC) must have forgotten something important about the college student he so viciously attacked – he’s someone who pays his salary. The question asked of Rep. Etheridge is a legitimate question, “Do you fully support the Obama agenda?”

What’s even more appalling than watching a member of Congress bullying a student, grabbing him by the scruff of the neck , then switching to a head lock, is the ridiculous spin from the Washington Post describing this uncalled for attack as a hug.

Yes… a hug.

Next time I am in North Carolina, remind me NOT to ask any public servant any questions about their ideological preferences. Better still, remind me never to ask a Congressman for a hug.

Teachers Unions Block Teacher, Student Excellence

noreply@blogger.com (Rob Griffith) — Fri, 28 May 2010 23:50:00 +0000

At long last, mainstream media that cover the state capitol are starting to catch on that it’s not the number of dollars we spend on education that counts, it’s how those dollars are spent. In a Sacramento Bee Editorial published on May 22nd, the Bee took on the issue of choosing which teachers should be kept on as school districts statewide grapple with how they’re going to cut spending.

It’s about time, no, it’s long overdue, that we start holding teachers accountable for what comes out of their classrooms.

Teachers unions have successfully wiped out any accountability between teacher pay and what goes on in the classroom. Career Teachers are so used to automatic raises and benefit bumps, that even suggesting they should be graded on how well they teach is met with excuses, evasions, and outright hostility.

Recent letters from teachers in response to the Bee Editorial demonstrate their hostile attitude toward *gasp* having their workplace efforts evaluated as if they were mere mortals. A self-described social science teacher claimed that layoffs based on performance would infringe on his “rights” as a civil service employee. Is this social science teacher not aware all citizens enjoy equal rights, regardless of who employs them? He goes on to claim that seniority and tenure protections are essential to academic freedom, and to protect teachers from age discrimination and retaliation for labor union actions. You’d think a social science teacher would know that separate laws guarantee academic freedom for teachers, as well as protections from age discrimination and for labor organizing.

No wonder he doesn’t want anyone checking his work.

In another letter, there’s the usual party line that seniority and tenures rules “protect all teachers from the whims of supervisors and school boards.” Come again? Someone needs to remind this crowd that school board members are elected by the public, who in turn hire the Superintendents that manage our public schools. Is that what’s being taught in our classroom? That decisions made by duly-elected public officials are mere whims?

If you want to know why schools are failing our kids, all you really have to do is look at the attitudes evident behind these letters. Protected not just by civil service work rules but by union-negotiated labor contracts, public school teachers (with the exception of non-union charter schools) have lost all appreciation for the workplace realities they’re supposedly preparing our students for. The teacher who goes straight from earning a teaching credential into public school employment is rapidly enveloped into a collectivist work environment. In teacher land, raises are based on how loudly the group shouts at the bargaining table. Raises and classroom placement aren’t based excellence or exceptional performance. In fact, they’re forbidden by contract. Whoever it was that first said “90 percent of success is just showing up” must have been a teacher. Those of us competing for jobs and raises in the real job market know just how silly that sounds.

Instead, teacher salaries and work assignments are based on time on the job. Is it any wonder 90 percent of new teachers, (often the hardest working and most enthusiastic) leave teaching within three years?

Everyone can remember lousy teachers from their own school experience, but firing even the most worthless teachers requires “due process,” a lengthy and expensive process costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. That’s a tall expense for cash-strapped districts even in the best of times. The inability to fire the worst members of any work force is a guarantee for mediocrity among the rest.

Until we break the union-stranglehold over our public school system, our students will be denied the opportunity to learn from teachers whose own work experience demands and instills excellence.

The Blunt Truth: Marijuana Taxes Won’t Cover Cost of Drug Abuse

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Thu, 27 May 2010 20:40:00 +0000

The progressives that advocate the legalization of marijuana are conveniently empathetic; a mind altering drug is acceptable if it potentially raises revenue, despite the societal Pandora’s Box that it opens.

California has become consumed with an extremely perverse form of progressivism. This ideological drug is so addictive, that its physical counterpart, marijuana, has qualified as a ballot measure for legalization.

Last month I wrote a piece called Back to Reality, in which I explained the harsh realities of drug abuse, urban decay, and other societal woes. I was completely mystified by the response. Marijuana users e-mailed me in droves, relying on half-baked and unsubstantiated medical reasons for statewide legalization as if to say that marijuana is the only drug capable of alleviating pain.

How pathetic. Since appealing to compassion doesn’t work, let’s try a more logical and analytical approach.

Just think of the mountains of new laws and regulations that will have to be enacted to regulate legalized marijuana. What would be the legal limit for drivers? What about passengers who are smoking—will there be a law prohibiting contact buzz? Go for a jog and ask yourself these questions. How will we determine who is too high? Will the state create an apparatus? Wouldn’t that cost more money…where would the revenue come from to enforce these laws? If you guessed out your pocket...bingo.

Let’s have a look at the potential impact on business. How will HR departments across the state handle this? Will businesses be forced to allow their employees hourly “pot breaks?” How will that affect productivity? I can tell you…probably for the worse.

There is a tax for everything in this state. If you don’t believe me, ask all the small business owners who have fled California in search of tax asylum. Marijuana would only lead this state down a similar tax-ridden path. Who would enforce these new laws and regulations? Would the state create a tax to fund a bureau of marijuana control? Or would it rely on the already understaffed and overburdened local police departments? Both answer leads to more money coming out of your pocket to support someone else’s habit.

So many questions, not enough answers.

A drug dealer is not going to give up his income. It’s just not going to happen. Even if they did, marijuana is a cash only business. Drug dealers don’t walk around with a sign that says “VISA and MASTERCARD accepted”. Drug dealers could rake in thousands of dollars and report as little as 50 cents if they wanted to, and the Board of Equalization wouldn’t able to do a thing about it. I can only imagine that the medical marijuana system would suffer as well. If everyone can grow marijuana, what happens to those small businesses that legitimately produce the drug? It is not a sustainable system.

Everybody knows somebody who, while stoned, suddenly came up with the “idea of a lifetime.” Unfortunately, those great ideas tend to look not so great the next morning after the buzz wears away. The people who believe taxing marijuana makes perfect sense, man, sound like they’ve been busy smoking the same stuff they want legalized.

Barbara Boxer’s on the Ropes

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Tue, 11 May 2010 21:48:00 +0000

The junior Senator from California is in a world of hurt. This past weekend, the Los Angeles Times, the most influential, and certainly among the most liberal of West Coast newspapers, took a pass on endorsing Barbara Boxer’s bid for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate. To bolster its conclusion, the Times wrote:

“We find that we're no fans of incumbent Barbara Boxer…she displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could.”

Wow. If this doesn’t make it clear that Californians are fed up with Boxer, I am not sure what will.

Boxer is in serious peril of losing her cushy Capitol throne, not that that’s so surprising. Her most recently memorable moment from 18 wasted years in the U.S. Senate was finding fault with a respected Army General for daring to call her Ma’am. California voters are fed up with self-absorbed, cavalier politicians more worried about their perceived status in office than serving their constituents.

These days, Boxer looks more and more like a lightweight than a true contender. She’s like one of those show boxers who builds a cream puff record battling opponents who can’t fight back.

But take her out of her home gym and put her into a real arena, and we’ll see more and more of her fans stop cheering and start booing.

I’ve spent time in the ring, and let me tell you, the one thing you can’t do when you’re on the ropes is call for help. But that’s exactly what Boxer’s done. President Obama has stepped in to help the slap-happy Senator with one fund raiser in Los Angeles, and a second planned for San Francisco.

That’s not the mark of a champ. That’s the sign of a Boxer who’s looked down and realized she’s got feet of clay.

A Long...Long Time

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Tue, 04 May 2010 15:29:00 +0000

I was doing some channel surfing on the radio this morning and I came across Linda Ronstadt’s hit single ‘Long Long Time’…I couldn’t help but think of Jerry Brown. And I did some research--because I wasn't born when The Man They Called "Moonbeam" was last in the governor's office.

But it has certainly been a “long long time,” so to put this in perspective for those of you who may have forgotten, I’ve compiled a prolific list of things that happened just as Jerry Brown left his 2nd term as Governor nearly three decades ago.

Men At Work won a Grammy for “Best New Artist”...

The Dow Jones reached 1,100 for the first time...

“The A-Team” premiered while “M*A*S*H” broadcast its final episode...

The United States Football League began its first season...

Diane Feinstein was Mayor of San Francisco...

The median household income was $20,885...

Microsoft Word, Apple’s Lisa computer and the first mobile phones were introduced...

“Return of the Jedi” was the top grossing movie...

The average cost of a new house was $89,800...

The hottest selling toys were Cabbage Patch Kids...

A gallon of gas cost $1.24 and a dozen eggs cost 86 cents...

Tom Brokaw became the host of “NBC Nightly News”...

The memories…they say all good things must come to an end, but I am not sure if Jerry Brown’s governorship fits into that category. His policies were miserable and California is still reeling from their effects (unionized state workers, "small is beautiful," etc.) Unlike the list above, Jerry Brown’s two terms as governor bring on a sense of nausea, not nostalgia.

I Don’t Believe What I Just Saw

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:31:00 +0000

The signature line from the legendary announcer Jack Buck couldn’t be more accurate when it comes to describing my experience while bracketing Jerry Brown at the California Democratic convention this past weekend at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of “diversity” and “tolerance”, but it certainly didn’t feel that way as I waded through the sea of Democrats with a huge JerryLand.org (coming soon) poster along with three incarnations of the career politician Jerry Brown.

I could not and still can’t believe what I saw at the CDC… a complete lack of enthusiasm, ardor or concern for real issues that affect everyday people and more importantly, I can’t believe that Democrats are using the same tired and insincere rhetoric. Everything at the convention just seemed manufactured (except Jerry’s speech, which is always unpredictable and unintelligible) and out of touch, so what I tried to find out from the crowd leaving the main auditorium is which Jerry Brown is running for governor and will he ever take a stance on anything?

Do you think the Democrats tolerated any of that? Hardly. Supposedly I have the right to express my opinions respectfully to encourage healthy debate but the Democrats weren’t having it. Instead I was called ignorant, shoved around in the crowd, and even challenged to a fight by a woman who had to be in her 70’s. Judging by the press accounts, this is the only time Democrats at this convention were sincerely passionate about anything.

What is wrong with asking a candidate for governor to take a stance on an issue? What is wrong with asking for specific solutions? Those are serious questions that deserve serious answers. I couldn’t find a serious answer to any of my concerns the whole time. Just when I thought it couldn’t get any more unbelievable the California Democratic Party Chairman was quoted as saying the secret to getting the youth to vote in November was legalizing pot.

Like I said before, I don’t believe what I just heard.

So I guess California’s failing economy isn’t a good enough reason for people to come out to vote? Solving unemployment isn’t good enough either? No, their Get Out The Vote solution is…pot.

Think about that for a second…

If Jack Buck were still alive, I am not sure how he would have responded to that.

Fortunately there is one thing I do believe; Republicans are offering real solutions. Republicans aren’t placing their hopes on a mind altering drug. Republicans take their constituency far more seriously than to say something as outlandish as what the California Democratic Party Chair said this weekend. And if the Democrats hold true to form it looks like I will be shaking my head in disbelief until Election Day.

Back to Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:19:00 +0000

Somewhere along the lines of strong rhetoric, economic promises, and wishful thinking, marijuana is now the miraculous solution to the already long list of miserable policies that plague Californians. There is a serious disconnect with reality here. Let me spell it out clearly...marijuana is a mind altering drug.

Proponents of legalized marijuana will readily point to its seldom used medicinal purposes and to its potential to be a revenue creator; California proposition 215 also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, allows patients with a valid doctors recommendation to cultivate marijuana use, since then Oakland has become the first U.S. city to put a tax on the drug which estimates put at $300,000 to $1,000,000 annually in revenue back into the city.

These arguments look good on paper, but in reality, the massive expansion of drug use is not the way to go.

I grew up in South Central Los Angeles (now known as South L.A.), a place filled with rampant drug abuse, urban decay and gang violence. 88th and Hoover. I remember it like it was yesterday, drug dealers destroying the community, territorial gang wars, and late night western movie like shootouts fueled by the very same substance that proponents of this initiative are trying to make available to everyone.

How could my father ever tell me that doing dope was bad, and that they have peripheral effects that can change the direction of my life for the worse if the state of California is endorsing it? How could my mother tell me not to partake in an activity that in some shape or form may cause the reckless endangerment of people? Does that sound extreme? Yes. However, it was my reality for a long time, and it still is for many people living in inner cities throughout the state of California.

My father would constantly warn drug dealers throughout the neighborhood that their cavalier attitude laced with gang violence and drug abuse would lead to peril. I watched my father tell a young man by the name of Dwight to leave the drug house alone, and that if he didn’t it would be his final resting place. Dwight thought that marijuana use was no big deal and that there wasn’t any connection to the other drugs he was involved with. A mere three hours later while Dwight was in the middle of a drug transaction, some gang members drove by in a Cadillac with tinted windows and laced Dwight with bullets. Dwight was only 19 and he died right where my father predicted he would.

Do we still want to accept moral relativism?

As young as 11 years old, I was solicited to use drugs and marijuana. I am not sure that those who favor decriminalizing marijuana have witnessed students ditch class and throw away their education because of drug use. I can recall sitting through countless D.A.R.E. presentations in the third grade. Why? Because the problem is that serious. Students would regularly come to campus with nickel bags of weed laced with other strong hallucinogens.

The countless murders, the lunch time fights, the gang warfare; it all starts with that very same gateway drug. We expect the people who engage in this reckless behavior to all of sudden become responsible citizens? Get real...

Do you seriously expect a drug dealer to give up their income? That is laughable. You'd literally have to be smoking to come to that conclusion. Drug dealers will only move to harder drugs. I can only ponder what direction such a course of action would take us considering that universal health care is now the law. We would be sending a message to our inner city youth saying, "Hey, smoke your life away, but don't worry, we'll pay for you to eventually kill yourself”. Ridiculous.

Am I saying that all people who smoke weed are doomed to a miserable life, and that there aren't any medicinal purposes? No. I am saying that there are far better ways to support the government, and the legalization of marijuana should not be on that list. Out of all the dope smokers in the inner city that I grew up with, I can say with 100% confidence that not one of them furthered their education, not one of them have contributed meaningfully back to society.

Is this the type of behavior that we want California to condone? Do we really want to expand these problems to a statewide level? It's just not worth it.

Proponents assume that making marijuana legal will inexplicably lead to drug dealers buying it wholesale from the government. No. Drug dealers, like they do now, will always beat the system. Where I grew up, they were always one step ahead of the police and the government, and my fear is that this legislation will turn that 'step' into a colossal leap.

It’s Not “Right”…It’s “Rational.”

noreply@blogger.com (Micah Grant) — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:18:00 +0000

The late William F. Buckley, Jr. once claimed a conservative “is someone who stands athwart history, yelling 'Stop', at a time when no one is inclined to do so.” I agree, but I wonder what Buckley would call the millions of Americans who have been yelling “STOP!” to Obama’s new health care plan?

He wouldn’t call them conservative; he’d call them rational.

He’d call them rational for wanting to solve our current economic woes and high levels of unemployment before creating a backroom written health care plan.

He’d call them rational for not wanting the average premiums for individual insurance plans to rise 13%, according to CBO estimates.

He’d call them rational for understanding that the $532 billion in Medicaid cuts will effectively cut our senior citizens’ benefits in half.

With the passing of this landmark health care bill, Obama and the Democrats have proven to millions of Americans that rationale doesn’t matter anymore, it’s about agenda, “whether you like it or not”.

The Democrats would have you believe that partisanship is purely a byproduct of Republican efforts to say “no”. Well Republicans weren’t saying “no” and neither were 57% of Americans…they were saying “stop”.

Apparently this isn’t about rationale anymore, so with that I leave you with Obama’s plans for America…

DEM MADNESS 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Standriff) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:39:00 +0000

Hey, baby...Markie V. here, ready to breakdown the brackets for the 2010 California Democrats version of “March Madness”. It’s my favorite time of year, when politics hits the hardwood and it’s a guaranteed dipsy-doo dunkeroo diddle dop slam-jam-bam, pudding-pop!

The field is set: 64 teams ready to compete and cut down the nets in Sacramento, baby!

But now, my friends, the fun really starts. When I break it down, the cream will rise to the top. In other words, I think most of the top seeds will make it to the Sweet 16.

Let’s start in the south with the Wolfgang Puck regional:

#1 seed John Perez and the Rubber Duckies open tournament play against the 16-seed Justin Blake, a State Senate candidate in the tournament for the very first time. Remember, no 16 has ever beaten a #1 seed in this tournament, and Blake looks like a sacrificial lamb.

There’s a nifty looking 8-9 matchup between consultants Steve Maviglio and Chris Lehane who both won their regular season titles but got dinged by the selection committee for some bad out-of-conference losses.

The #5 seed John Chiang looks to make some noise--but “The Controller” had some tough losses this past season and still isn’t sure if he can count on his reserves.

Keep an eye on the 4-13 contest--at #4, Congressman Jim Costa is a pretty lofty seed for someone weak on defense and #13 Ami “Shock Doc” Bera is one of my “Diaper Dandies” and could make a run (I realize he’s not going very deep but a good statistical match up for the more crafty Costa and a real “Maalox Masher,” baby!)

Gavin Newsom is a solid #2 pick...in fact, he’s been a perennial #2...but the surprise in this regional is at the #3 seed. Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg was the preseason pick to win it all but had a rough finish.

Now, over to the always powerful Trader Joe regional:

The top seed is Jerry Brown--no surprise here. “Moonbeam” will eventually make his way to the Final Four but he’ll have to take on scrappy Kevin DeLeon who can really ring the bell but has never faced someone of Jerry’s experience.

The biggest wildcard in the Trader Joe bracket is the #6 seed Karen Bass who was an upset winner in the SEIU tournament. She’s awesome with a capital “B”, baby!

One to watch in this region--#4 seed Nathan Ballard who has post-season experience and can really bring pressure but is prone to turnovers.

And of course we usually see a 12-5 upset in the opening round and look for Kamala Harris to cause trouble because she’s good at flopping. But #5 Richie Ross is at his nastiest come tournament time and has been to the Final Four 5 times in the past 11 years.

And now the Tim Robbins regional...and the top seed there is Barbara Boxer, heading a bracket for the 18th time. However, shaky support and no depth could make her run at the title a short one. Let’s see if she rebounds and turns out be a real “Window Washer,” baby!

Biggest surprise, John Garamendi, the former #2 in the state who falls all the way to an 8-seed after jumping to another job midseason.

The 6-11 matchup pits a couple of underachievers--6-seed Diane Feinstein scores more, 11-seed Gray Davis defends more so it’s a contest that’s too close to call.

The 13-seed, State Senator Gloria Romero, has the potential to be a real Cinderella this March. Dangerous in committee with a wild streak that reminds me of that wacky French guy from Oakland who almost won the whole thing 4 years ago.

Finally, in the unpredictable Keith Olbermann regional:

The #1 seed (and the top seed overall) Nancy Pelosi gets a tune-up game in the opening round with an overmatched Assemblywoman, Joan Buchanan, in the 16 slot.

In the bottom half of the bracket, the #2 seed--John Burton--is my PTP’er, baby, “Poll-Trouble Party”--and you don’t see that around California too often. And more bad news for the Chairman -- the last 3 times he’s been a top 2 seed, he’s been knocked out before he reached the Sweet 16.

The 8-9 pairing in the Olbermann region puts two tournament regulars with a lot of bad press this season. Former AG flack Scott Gerber, the #8 seed, has been all but silent recently while #9 Alberto Torrico is having big trouble with his release.

Two more congressmen meet up in the 4-13 matchup. Dennis Cardoza winds up on the 4-line after some problems establishing position showed up right before the selection deadline, taking on a veteran George Miller at the 13-seed, a former sharpshooter who lately tends to dribble too much.

So it’s Pelosi, Boxer, Perez and Brown as the top seeds. No surprises there, but a shocking snub for longtime powerhouse Bob Mullholland, who finds himself waiting for an invitation to the lesser NIT (Nervous Insider Tournament) if he wants to see any post-season action.

My March Madness prediction? Pelosi and Brown make the finals...and nobody wins, baby.

Republican Voters’ Choice of Nominees Will Set the Stage for Victory

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Standriff) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:21:00 +0000

by CRP Chairman Ron Nehring (in Fox & Hounds)

A wave is building in American politics. Whether that wave produces a second Republican Revolution, or a more mild course correction for the nation’s politics, remains to be seen. In any case, victory for the GOP in November hinges on the Republican Party’s success in convincing the American people it is a viable, preferred alternative to the leadership and direction offered by Barack Obama’s Democratic Party.

History is clearly on the side of the GOP. In the last 12 mid-term elections, the party not holding the White House has enjoyed a net gain in Congress and state legislatures in 10 of them. The magnitude of the net gain has historically been in inverse proportion to the President’s approval rating, and President Obama’s is in the tank and likely to remain there. Historically Presidents enjoy little improvement in their public approval during the second year of their term.

How best to maximize the party’s opportunity for victory and build on the party’s recent successes in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts was a major focus of last week’s meeting of the Republican National Committee in Hawaii.

One proposal to demonstrate the party’s commitment to conservative issue positions would eliminate RNC funding for any candidate who did not score 80% on a 10-point ideological litmus test. The proposal was largely symbolic, since most candidate funding in America is generated through individual donations, not support from the national committee. State GOP leaders found the proposal unworkable, and voted unanimously to oppose it. Ultimately, it was withdrawn.

Yet the debate reminded everyone of the reality that candidates are not hand-picked by officials in Washington, but instead are elected in party primaries that are just now getting underway. Unlike Europe’s parliamentary systems, in America, it is the rank and file voters who choose the candidates, not party elites.

While high school textbooks tell us that political parties use platforms to communicate their principles, the reality is that any political party is ultimately defined by its candidates. Every day, candidate statements on issues and votes on important legislation are transmitted to millions of potential voters by the news media and in the blogosphere. By contrast, party platforms are rarely read once adopted.

Just who Republicans nominate in primary elections over the next few months will directly impact the party’s ability to win in November, and govern thereafter.

Put another way, the direction a new, Republican Congress would take will be determined not just by which party wins the majority of seats in November’s general election, but by which candidates voters choose to carry the party’s banner in the primary elections that will take place months before.

Republicans must choose nominees who will prove formidable against their Democrat opponents in the Fall campaign, while also selecting candidates who, once elected, will put Republican ideas into action.

Of course, Democrats also get a vote in how this year’s campaign progresses. The President’s approval rating has tanked as his party took its eye off the economy and instead pursued an unpopular legislative agenda. Yet, in the wake of the GOP victory in Massachusetts, we have seen no sign the White House or the Democratic leaders in Congress plan to choose a governing agenda other than the unpopular one they have pursued so far, marked by stimulus, cap and trade, and health care bills that have proven to be losers with voters, particularly independents.

Finally, it is worth noting that Republican leaders understand that voters expect our elected officials to put Republican policies into action once elected, not merely become moderate Democrats in practice. Today’s Republican leadership believes this, and as a result on issue after issue we have seen Republicans offer constructive alternatives to the Democrats’ liberal proposals, both when the President’s approval was sky high, and today.

The Republican Party is ready to work hard to elect the candidates who are chosen to carry the Republican banner to Washington and Sacramento. Voters should choose wisely. The future of our party, and our nation, depends on it.

CRP Chairman Ron Nehring's Update from the RNC Winter Meetings

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Standriff) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:55:00 +0000

California State Party Chairman Ron Nehring is attending the RNC Winter Meetings in Hawaii and has posted an update on the Flash Report website...check it out HERE.

An Evening with Hon. Condoleezza Rice

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:04:00 +0000

To view PDF click here:
http://www.faithfancher.org/pdfs/Condi_Save_the_Date.pdf