March 11, 2011
The Riverside County Young Republicans recently gathered for its March general membership meeting. Almost immediately, following the call to discuss & potentially endorse on the upcoming CRP proposed bylaws concerning the aftermath of Proposition 14, I received a flood of communications making the case for one side or the other. There is no doubt that this is merely foreshadowing of an energetic and passionate CRP convention to come.
For those interested in the official RCYR position, the primary result from our discussion was that it would be premature at the very least to endorse at this point especially considering Congressman Tom McClintock!'s recent statement concerning the post Proposition 14 dilemma. We therefore took no position. Ultimately we determined that the final versions of both proposals will bear significant changes at the very least. It is still possible that a merged compromise could arise or perhaps a third option might be introduced by another entity.
RCYR concluded that the purpose of our discussion should be a collaborative process of determining the pro’s and con’s of both proposals. The following are some thought’s and considerations that arose from the discussion.
Nehring Proposal hereby referred to as (Proposal A):
This proposal demonstrates the Republican principle of representative democracy, that being said how familiar are voters, in reality, with the county party delegates they indiscriminately choose on their ballots? Not to mention of course the CRP appointed delegates included in the caucus that can be removed and reappointed at a moment’s notice?
The most important aspect to Proposal A is the ideal of the Republican Party having a say in supporting primary candidates. In the race for the recently vacated 36th Congressional District seat there is roughly 1 to 2 worthy Republican candidates that can be taken seriously. This is known as a safe Democrat seat but then again so was Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, later to be referred to as the people’s seat. Here, without the Party’s ability to endorse in what could be a watershed race for Republicans on the West Coast, we must unfortunately suffer an overflow of clowns, imposters, and non-viable candidates that undermine a reasonable Republican’s chances in this special election and of course all primary “general” elections to come of making the top two for the run-off. Endorsement however can be a double edged sword.
A consideration to make regarding both proposals are the significant financial backing the party appreciates that may be affected should we choose one or the other.
A successful party is the result of strategic coalition building. We as Republicans have remained strong as a coalition of fiscal conservatives, strong national defense enthusiasts, social values conservatives and libertarians to name a few groups. Proposal A backers primary concern is dissolution of this coalition. It is a reasonable argument to conclude that a shift in platform could have a ripple effect and completely undermine this coalition which could take decades to recover from.
Proposal A could however reinvigorate the party machine. When campaigns became candidate centered and party support of a candidate for general elections chose a more democratic path all political parties suffered a loss in power. Campaign finance reform further stung political party power paving the way for unencumbered elite candidates that by and large must be financially independent in order to appear palatable to donors and mount a serious campaign. We have since been reduced to one of relatively meager financial means emphasizing mostly grassroots support and activity. This proposal would clearly make the California Republican Party once again, a powerful entity in elections and candidate support. Whether this is a good or bad thing in the long and short of it is at the heart of the argument between both proposals.
McCarthy Proposal hereby referred to as (Proposal B):
This proposal argues that it represents a pro-growth policy regarding the election process. The proposal supports the idea of a broad based coalition reaching beyond the boundaries of what has remained the traditional Goldwater/Reagan based network. Is this what we want as Republicans? Does the nature of the California electorate make traditional conservative candidates non-viable throughout the state in all but a few regional strongholds? These are also questions at the heart of the argument between the two proposals here.
Proposal B hypothetically asks, why mandate endorsement, because if we truly want a coalition from the bottom up for support of one candidate or another, why not let voters themselves continue to decide. A party endorsement may back one candidate but it can’t ultimately prevent another from running. The reasonable argument however is that without a strong Republican Party with firm values as a beacon of choice, we as conservatives will be bred out of existence by voters of diverse value systems. In that case why have a Republican Party at all?
What if Nancy Pelosi’s district was hypothetically an open seat? (I love this hypothetical by the way because one day this wish will come true.) Could we possibly run a candidate like Sarah Palin or Chris Christie here and hope to gain a seat? This is of course an extreme example but clearly illustrates the point that some localized seats demand support of candidates that build coalitions that may not be as traditional as in the Inland Empire or Orange County. Scott Brown is hardly the quintessential conservative but that didn’t prevent my excitement with our victory in Massachusetts. Indeed centrist Republicans that afford us a party majority allows for our tough conservative voices from strongholds to get real work done. It could be argued that Proposal A allows for appropriate endorsements due to the regional caucus choosing where to give support.
Proposal B makes it clear that it wants to protect Republican Incumbents. There is by the way, a good reason for this whether or not it’s popular. Incumbents statistically have the best track record of winning and thus provide a foundation for Republicans to build a majority from. Every time a seat from any party opens up, it runs the risk of it switching into opposite hands. Probably the most controversial portion of Proposal A is the idea of removing support from candidates that don’t tow the party platform line. Just where do those boundaries begin and where do the recall’s end? I ask this as a reasonable question as one that participated in the Adam’s recall effort. These are dangerous waters for the party. I expect voters, YR’s and the CRA to step up to the plate and hold self serving Republican’s accountable to their deeds, but the Party’s primary focus should be to beat Democrats and protect Republicans.
In Conclusion
Supporting good and viable Republicans in a primary with all available resources is a good byproduct of endorsement on the table with Proposal A. We ought to consider strictly constructed curbs such that our Party endorsement will ultimately focus on expanding the party brand and supporting good viable Republicans.
Protecting incumbent Republicans may not be popular on a statewide level, but wait until some disappointed interest comes after your representative that you for one reason or another appreciate. We should tread lightly here. There are plenty of negatives we could point out with all of our Republican elected leaders. Just remember that the information accessible to most legislators is in most cases far better than what we are aware of. Not all is as it seems in the course of the political process and votes are cast to save this State from a complete liberal onslaught on a regular basis by the same individuals that we have demonized for other votes.
The main purpose of this commentary was to reflect the tone of the discussion in such a manner that may prove thought provoking and increase awareness of both proposals. It’s easy to point fingers calling each other RINO’s and Right Wing Extremists, and it doesn’t help that both sides may wear those labels as badges of honor. We want what is best for our State and the Nation which means good, strong Republican leadership. With that as our top priority at the upcoming CRP convention, we can’t go wrong.
Nathan A. Miller, President
Riverside County Young Republicans
Finance Director
California Young Republican Federation
The Riverside County Young Republicans recently gathered for its March general membership meeting. Almost immediately, following the call to discuss & potentially endorse on the upcoming CRP proposed bylaws concerning the aftermath of Proposition 14, I received a flood of communications making the case for one side or the other. There is no doubt that this is merely foreshadowing of an energetic and passionate CRP convention to come.
For those interested in the official RCYR position, the primary result from our discussion was that it would be premature at the very least to endorse at this point especially considering Congressman Tom McClintock!'s recent statement concerning the post Proposition 14 dilemma. We therefore took no position. Ultimately we determined that the final versions of both proposals will bear significant changes at the very least. It is still possible that a merged compromise could arise or perhaps a third option might be introduced by another entity.
RCYR concluded that the purpose of our discussion should be a collaborative process of determining the pro’s and con’s of both proposals. The following are some thought’s and considerations that arose from the discussion.
Nehring Proposal hereby referred to as (Proposal A):
This proposal demonstrates the Republican principle of representative democracy, that being said how familiar are voters, in reality, with the county party delegates they indiscriminately choose on their ballots? Not to mention of course the CRP appointed delegates included in the caucus that can be removed and reappointed at a moment’s notice?
The most important aspect to Proposal A is the ideal of the Republican Party having a say in supporting primary candidates. In the race for the recently vacated 36th Congressional District seat there is roughly 1 to 2 worthy Republican candidates that can be taken seriously. This is known as a safe Democrat seat but then again so was Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, later to be referred to as the people’s seat. Here, without the Party’s ability to endorse in what could be a watershed race for Republicans on the West Coast, we must unfortunately suffer an overflow of clowns, imposters, and non-viable candidates that undermine a reasonable Republican’s chances in this special election and of course all primary “general” elections to come of making the top two for the run-off. Endorsement however can be a double edged sword.
A consideration to make regarding both proposals are the significant financial backing the party appreciates that may be affected should we choose one or the other.
A successful party is the result of strategic coalition building. We as Republicans have remained strong as a coalition of fiscal conservatives, strong national defense enthusiasts, social values conservatives and libertarians to name a few groups. Proposal A backers primary concern is dissolution of this coalition. It is a reasonable argument to conclude that a shift in platform could have a ripple effect and completely undermine this coalition which could take decades to recover from.
Proposal A could however reinvigorate the party machine. When campaigns became candidate centered and party support of a candidate for general elections chose a more democratic path all political parties suffered a loss in power. Campaign finance reform further stung political party power paving the way for unencumbered elite candidates that by and large must be financially independent in order to appear palatable to donors and mount a serious campaign. We have since been reduced to one of relatively meager financial means emphasizing mostly grassroots support and activity. This proposal would clearly make the California Republican Party once again, a powerful entity in elections and candidate support. Whether this is a good or bad thing in the long and short of it is at the heart of the argument between both proposals.
McCarthy Proposal hereby referred to as (Proposal B):
This proposal argues that it represents a pro-growth policy regarding the election process. The proposal supports the idea of a broad based coalition reaching beyond the boundaries of what has remained the traditional Goldwater/Reagan based network. Is this what we want as Republicans? Does the nature of the California electorate make traditional conservative candidates non-viable throughout the state in all but a few regional strongholds? These are also questions at the heart of the argument between the two proposals here.
Proposal B hypothetically asks, why mandate endorsement, because if we truly want a coalition from the bottom up for support of one candidate or another, why not let voters themselves continue to decide. A party endorsement may back one candidate but it can’t ultimately prevent another from running. The reasonable argument however is that without a strong Republican Party with firm values as a beacon of choice, we as conservatives will be bred out of existence by voters of diverse value systems. In that case why have a Republican Party at all?
What if Nancy Pelosi’s district was hypothetically an open seat? (I love this hypothetical by the way because one day this wish will come true.) Could we possibly run a candidate like Sarah Palin or Chris Christie here and hope to gain a seat? This is of course an extreme example but clearly illustrates the point that some localized seats demand support of candidates that build coalitions that may not be as traditional as in the Inland Empire or Orange County. Scott Brown is hardly the quintessential conservative but that didn’t prevent my excitement with our victory in Massachusetts. Indeed centrist Republicans that afford us a party majority allows for our tough conservative voices from strongholds to get real work done. It could be argued that Proposal A allows for appropriate endorsements due to the regional caucus choosing where to give support.
Proposal B makes it clear that it wants to protect Republican Incumbents. There is by the way, a good reason for this whether or not it’s popular. Incumbents statistically have the best track record of winning and thus provide a foundation for Republicans to build a majority from. Every time a seat from any party opens up, it runs the risk of it switching into opposite hands. Probably the most controversial portion of Proposal A is the idea of removing support from candidates that don’t tow the party platform line. Just where do those boundaries begin and where do the recall’s end? I ask this as a reasonable question as one that participated in the Adam’s recall effort. These are dangerous waters for the party. I expect voters, YR’s and the CRA to step up to the plate and hold self serving Republican’s accountable to their deeds, but the Party’s primary focus should be to beat Democrats and protect Republicans.
In Conclusion
Supporting good and viable Republicans in a primary with all available resources is a good byproduct of endorsement on the table with Proposal A. We ought to consider strictly constructed curbs such that our Party endorsement will ultimately focus on expanding the party brand and supporting good viable Republicans.
Protecting incumbent Republicans may not be popular on a statewide level, but wait until some disappointed interest comes after your representative that you for one reason or another appreciate. We should tread lightly here. There are plenty of negatives we could point out with all of our Republican elected leaders. Just remember that the information accessible to most legislators is in most cases far better than what we are aware of. Not all is as it seems in the course of the political process and votes are cast to save this State from a complete liberal onslaught on a regular basis by the same individuals that we have demonized for other votes.
The main purpose of this commentary was to reflect the tone of the discussion in such a manner that may prove thought provoking and increase awareness of both proposals. It’s easy to point fingers calling each other RINO’s and Right Wing Extremists, and it doesn’t help that both sides may wear those labels as badges of honor. We want what is best for our State and the Nation which means good, strong Republican leadership. With that as our top priority at the upcoming CRP convention, we can’t go wrong.
Nathan A. Miller, President
Riverside County Young Republicans
Finance Director
California Young Republican Federation




RSS Feed