Video: Tom McClintock endorses Chuck DeVore

May 17, 2010

California congressman Tom McClintock, a powerful figure on the Right in this state, has cut a video carrying his endorsement of Assemblyman Chuck DeVore in his race for the Republican nomination for the US Senate. While lacking Governor Palin’s cachet, one hopes that McClintock’s blessing, coming from someone who knows California politics very well, will carry a lot of weight with Republican voters:

Tom McClintock represents one of my great political regrets of recent years, having cast my vote in the 2003 gubernatorial recall election instead for Arnold Schwarzenegger.  There are few do-overs in politics, but this time I plan to make up for it by voting conviction over star-power.

Advertisements

California: US Senate race debate

May 9, 2010

Thursday night a debate was held at the Museum of Tolerance among the three candidates for the Republican nomination for US senator: Chuck DeVore, Carly Fiorina, and Tom Campbell. I wasn’t able to attend, but the debate will be broadcast this morning at 11AM on KABC. In the meanwhile, Meredith Turney of Flash Report provides her analysis of the debate:

Unsurprisingly, all three camps have claimed victory for their candidates’ performance. I think each candidate was able to deliver on their respective strengths. However, each performance should be analyzed based on each candidate’s ability to win not only the primary, but the general election.

I would never support Tom Campbell in a Republican primary if I had a choice of someone more conservative, which both DeVore and Fiorina obviously are. This was most clearly elucidated when the candidates were asked whether they support someone listed on the no-fly list being allowed to purchase a firearm. Campbell immediately responded, “No.” While DeVore and Fiornia affirmed their belief in the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the due process of law (those on the no-fly list haven’t been convicted of a crime). Taken aback by his peers’ response, Campbell retorted, “It seems somewhat unusual to take that position, except perhaps in a Republican primary.” Republican primary voters won’t miss this slap at their conservative, Second-Amendment-supporting reputation.

(…)

With the election less than a month away, voters are just now beginning to pay attention to candidates. The senate race has been overshadowed by the far more expensive governor race. Polling numbers show Campbell neck-and-neck with Fiorina, and DeVore trailing both. But there is still a large group of undecided voters. As conservatives begin to examine the positions of each candidate, they will immediately rule out Campbell and begin focusing on the other two candidates. When it comes to conservative positions on major issues, DeVore and Fiorina are both appealing. It then becomes a matter of who can beat Barbara Boxer in November. Based on Democrats’ attacks on Fiorina during the primary season, it looks like Boxer would rather not face Fiorina this November.

Carly may have the edge based on the “Whom does Boxer tell us she fears most?” factor, but it’s not as if she is without weaknesses, such as her un-conservative fondness for representation by gender, her prior lack of interest in that most basic of a citizen’s duties – voting, or her controversial record while head of Hewlett-Packard. I can’t get rid of this nagging feeling that she’s a dilettante running for the nomination because she has nothing else to do, and that as a senator she’ll lack conviction to the principles she’s professed.

She has, however, picked up the endorsement of major conservative groups, as Sarah Palin pointed out in her endorsement.

As I’ve said before, my choice is Mr. DeVore; he has both the positions and the consistent track record. I’ll vote for him in the primary, and I think he has as good a chance as any of beating Senator Boxer (D-Moron). I’ll be interested to see the debate to get a better handle on all three candidates and to gauge my own comfort at voting for any of them in November.

RELATED: Following up on yesterday’s post about the Palin endorsement, I note Erick Erickson of Red State voices thoughts similar to my own: luv ya, guv, but I’m staying with Chuck.

UPDATE: I just noticed this was the 3,000 post on this blog. What a windbag I am. 🙂


Of Palin, DeVore, Fiorina, and endorsements

May 8, 2010

Like many on the Right, I was taken by surprise by former Governor Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Carly Fiorina for the Republican nomination for Senator from California. As a supporter of both Palin and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who’s also running for the nomination and who shares many of the Governor’s beliefs, I had expected her to endorse him, should she choose to get involved at all. Not surprisingly, her announcement set off a minor storm on the Right, both in California and nationally. This post, then, is about two things: the endorsement itself and how the Right should take it.

SHE DID WHAT??

Governor Palin issued her endorsement on Thursday; you can read it on her Facebook page, including the update she added after receiving a lot of criticism.

Why’d she do it?

Not being a party to the inner workings of either the Palin, Fiorina, or DeVore camps, I’m not going to speculate about “real” motives. (Then why are you blogging, dude? I thought that was the whole point! -Tito I’m trying to be reasonable for a change?) All I have to work with are the Governor’s own words, so, out of courtesy to her and lacking contrary evidence, I’ll take them mostly at face value.

“Mostly?”

Yeah, there are a couple of things that bother me. Well, three actually. In no particular order:

First, Governor Palin lists several reasons for supporting Carly Fiorina in the pre-update portion of her post, all meant to show Fiorina’s a genuine conservative whom the conservative-libertarian Right can support. Okay, but almost all those also apply to Assemblyman DeVore, who also seems to have been more consistent in his beliefs than Ms. Fiorina. So, what’s the difference that tells me I should give my vote to Carly? Sarah doesn’t say, largely ignoring Mr. DeVore in her post.

Second, Palin refers to Carly’s growing up “…in a modest home with a school teacher dad…” Huh? Pardon me, Governor, but Carly Fiorina is the daughter of Joseph Sneed III, who was an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Texas since graduating from UT in 1947. Subsequently, he taught at Cornell and Stanford law schools, was the Dean of Duke’s law school, and served from 1973 until his death in 2008 on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fiorina was born in 1954, when Judge Sneed was made a full professor at UT, and three when he took up his position at Cornell. I would not call this a “modest upbringing” in the way most people understand it, certainly not like Governor Palin’s own youth. Not wanting to believe the Governor was being deliberately misleading in that statement, I can only assume she took biographical information from the Fiorina campaign and ran with it. This speaks of sloppy, superficial research at best, and calls the rest of her endorsement into question.

Third, when Palin referred to Fiorina in her endorsement as a “commonsense conservative,” I had to ask how it was conservative for Carly Fiorina to endorse legislative apportionment on the basis of gender, rather than individual merit. That’s corporatist, not conservative. And it’s something I find antithetical to everything American politics should be.

I’ve yet to receive a good answer to any of these.

Of the aftereffects of the endorsement itself, there’s no doubt that it was good for Fiorina and a body-blow to DeVore, who actively sought Governor Palin’s  blessing. And there’s no doubt that it sent shock waves through the conservative populist (“Tea Party”) movement here in the Golden State and nationwide. And this leads to the next section.

HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THIS??

To paint with a bit of a broad brush, there have been three general reactions to Palin’s announcement:

Puzzled, but willing to give the governor a break: “Now why would she do that? It doesn’t make sense, but I’ve admired her to this point, so I’ll have to think about this for a bit.” I fall into this group, along with quite a few Righty bloggers.

Hurt, betrayed, and ticked off: “OMG?? WTF?? Sarah Palin endorsed that RINO McCain toady? Then she’s not a Tea-Party, grassroots conservative! She’s just a… a… she’s just a Republican politician!” Followed by wailing, gnashing of teeth, and the tossing of souvenir caribou jerky into the garbage. Seen mostly on Twitter. (Including from some DeVore aides. Joshua Trevino, you need to walk back that “sheepdog” comment. It’s insulting both to Governor Palin and conservatives in California, and you make Mr. DeVore look bad by reflection.)

Ticked off at those who criticize Sarah Palin: “How dare you? The Governor is perfect! She’s one of us! She shakes things up! YOU’RE THE REAL RINO!!” Seen mostly at dedicated pro-Palin blogs, such as Conservatives for Palin. And before anyone comes after me with a 10-gauge, C4P does a great job defending the governor from the lies and slanders that have been thrown at her by the Left, the mainstream media (but I repeat myself), and the establishment Right. However, they have a bad habit of reacting to even legitimate criticism or questioning of Sarah Palin like a bunch of coked-up wolverines. (Adrienne Ross, your implication that DeVore is using state-paid staff to subsidize his campaign is definitely tendentious, as anyone can see who reads the article you linked.)

Here’s my take: an endorsement should be taken merely as a guide or a suggestion to be considered, not as holy writ to be obeyed blindly. And I don’t think Sarah Palin wants Stepford Wives for followers. We in the Center and the Right, who believe that progressives such as Barbara Boxer are backhanding the Constitution, spitting on the Founders, and running this country off a cliff, have to remember that our real political foes are on the progressive-statist Left, not each other. There is room to reasonably disagree. Or, as the great philosopher Rodney King once put it:

“Can’t we all get along?”

I support Sarah Palin. I like her record; I like what she stands for. And, 95% of the time, I like her judgment. I plan to vote for her and campaign for her should she run for President. But, as a conservative, I recognize that no person is perfect – not even Sarah Palin. I think she made a mistake with this endorsement, picking the second-best candidate. But I see this neither as a betrayal of “true conservatism” nor as a divine revelation. It is the recommendation of one very smart, very savvy politician whom I admire greatly – and with whom I disagree in this particular case. I can take her opinion into account, look at the web sites of all three candidates, and still make my own choice.

Which is to vote for Chuck DeVore.

If Carly wins, or (God forbid) Tom Campbell, I can vote for them, too, with a clear conscience. Any of the three is better than Barbara Boxer.

Any of them.

So let’s put down the long knives, remember what unites us, and aim for the gold ring in November, not the brass one in June.


Political ads go weird

February 4, 2010

Okay, this first is relatively normal, but it’s also pretty hard-hitting. It’s one thing to sling mud at your opponent, but how often have you seen the allies of one candidate call another a member of the Mafia?

Unless this is not unusual in Illinois?  I dont know

Next comes something I just didn’t expect: a near-lock on the Stupid Political Ad of the Year award by the Carly Fiorina US Senate campaign. I mean, is she trying to say that fiscal conservatives are all sheep waiting to be victimized by… demonsheep?

Fortunately, the DeVore campaign is on top of the Demonsheep threat.

Finally, I’m not sure why a race for coroner needs a TV ad, but, if I lived in New Orleans, I’d be tempted to vote for this guy:

Could have used a cameo by Elvira, however. Sex sells.

(via Baseball Crank)


Carly Fiorina: gender is more important than merit

January 22, 2010

I’m a great admirer of Dr. Martin Luther King, and particularly of one statement of his that crystallizes what politics in America should be:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

And, I think we can all agree, that should include gender, too.

Trouble is, Carly Fiorina doesn’t agree. Listen to this:

In other words, it’s more important that half or more of the elected officials of our government be women, rather than the most qualified person or the person preferred by the electorate regardless of gender. To Carly Fiorina, who has presented herself as a conservative for the Republican nomination for US senator from California, it is more important to represent demographic groups than individual citizens. This is nothing less than identity politics, and it is disturbing to say the least that someone who positions herself as a conservative running for office in a nation founded on the worth of the individual would advocate this. It is the fool’s path to a quota system and corporatism, something I would expect from Obama and the progressives who dominate the Democratic Party, not a Republican.

Tell me, Carly, since California is more than 30% Catholic, will our government be truly representative only when one-third of the legislature is Catholic? If it climbs to 40%, is our government no longer representative, even though those assemblymen and senators were duly elected by the people? And what about overlap between groups? If a legislator is a Black Catholic lesbian, in which group do you put them to determine “true representation?” Or is this the ultimate in efficiency, three groups for one seat?

How about we treat people as individuals, judging them by their deeds and the content of their character, and not by the meaningless accidents of biology?

Thankfully, California Republicans have a much better choice, a candidate who understands our founding principles: Chuck DeVore.

(Source: Red State. There’s a second audio from the same event in which Fiorina praises a observation made by Reverend Jesse Jackson. The post’s author wants us to be outraged by this. Well, I’m not. Don’t get me wrong: I think Jackson is a con artist, a race-baiter, an extortionist, and an overall slime of a human being, but there wasn’t anything particularly appalling in the statement Fiorina quoted. In fact, the real problem is that it was utterly vapid, a banal slogan pretending to be perceptive insight, something that Jackson specializes in. That Fiorina quoted it as wisdom is not evidence of her closet lefty-ism, but of her political shallowness. That’s the problem.)

UPDATE: I missed this earlier, but Sister Toldjah points to an article from the San Jose Mercury News about Carly’s foot-in-mouth moment, including a response from Chuck DeVore. More from Michelle Malkin.


Dear Florida

December 29, 2009

Please elect this man. All will be forgiven*.

You do your part, and we’ll get Chuck DeVore in, okay?

*(C’mon. You know what you did…)

(ht: Erick Erickson.)


Shilling for Chuck DeVore

December 9, 2009

Assemblyman DeVore’s latest campaign video invokes Senator Barbara Boxer’s support for crippling cap-and-trade legislation and ties it to Climategate:

In my opinion, Chuck DeVore is not only the best Republican running for Boxer’s Senate seat, he would make a fine senator overall. To learn more about Chuck, visit his campaign site.