As readers of FR know, Mitt Romney achieved the two-thirds vote necessary of over 230 delegates to receive the endorsement. Romney beat Thompson with Paul and Hunter in third and fourth. There are three observations that come out of that that seem to be playing out nationally.
Romney wants to win and will organize to do it.
CRA reached out to every campaign. The bigger the fight the bigger and better the convention and the better for CRA.
The campaign for Mitt Romney was the most active in trying to get the endorsement. Their staff brought out State Sen. Mark Wyland, Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, Former Assemblyman Tony Strickland and former State Sen. Bill Campbell to do the nominations on Sunday.
Fred Thompson had only a few volunteers, some of them new to CRA. While Tom McClintock spoke of his support for Fred on Friday, where was the letter from him on Sunday? Where were the legislators that endorsed him just a few days ago? Where was the campaign?
Where was Huckabee? If you are going to be POTUS you might want to try to campaign in every state. The new primary system demands it.
There were Romney delegates that were part of many various clubs and they turned out. Some were new to CRA, but so were many of the Ron Paul and Thompson delegates. The rules governing CRA Endorsements are very Byzantine in nature. The Romney people wanted to win. The Thompson campaign is simply not focusing on wining the nomination.
More people are getting over the “Mormon” thing.
Within CRA and the conservative religious leaders there are those that have serious problems with electing a member of the LDS church as US President. While that view is still there for some, they are become less focused on that as Romney becomes the most conservative viable alternative to Giuliani. CRA members who in their personal capacity work/volunteer for Traditional Value Coalition, Capitol Resource Institute, Eagle Forum etc. were supporting Romney. Nationwide you see people like Paul Weyrich, Bob Jones etc. doing the same thing.
Ron Paul is overshadowing traditional conservatives like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.
The boomlet for libertarian Ron Paul is squashing the chances of Hunter or Tancredo to get their message out and to gain momentum. There were many people supporting Ron Paul that a few months ago I would of said supported Hunter. That kept Hunter from going to the second round. There were more Ron Paul there than were delegates. The difficulty for the Paul campaign will be focusing people who don’t like rules to follow them in order to win caucuses (where he has a lot of potential in low turnout states)
While Mitt Romney is not the perfect candidate, he is becoming the conservative alternative to a Giuliani nomination and he is doing what is needed to be President.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Mike,
Can we call this past CRA Convention the drumbeat for Romney tour? For all those who weren’t there Saturday night, our keynote speakers had to contend with loud bongo drums in the next ballroom over from us all night. Damn those Romney guys are good planners.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
The conservative wing of the Republican Party determines who will win the primary in California. An endorsement of the Conservative CRA with a strong grassroots organization is significant.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
What I saw at the convention was sad but unfortunately, not unusual or unexpected. We reaped the fruit of a disturbing trend in CRA. The practice of shell units started up for the purpose of endorsing a particular candidate done on a grand scale. This coupled with a big bucks candidate’s campaign paying the way for many delegates to attend and vote for that candidate who’s now suddenly a conservative. Although done by the CRA rules, surely the spirit was violated and CRA was used.
As your East County delegate, I strongly supported Duncan Hunter. Below is my nomination speech for his endorsement that I gave on Sunday morning:
The Case for Hunter
Without question Duncan Hunter is the solid, committed conservative candidate.
He has been tested, tried and proven to be worthy of our trust, promoting our principles; pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-defense, pro-border security. He has worked tirelessly and brought about the effective border fence beginning in San Diego. When the fires broke out in San Diego County, he acted quickly to get the large water carrying military planes to fight the fires.
The CRA endorsement is not for sale or compromise. We should not endorse a candidate that requires a leap of faith that he will be a real conservative. We have Duncan Hunter before us that we know.
We are CRA. We do not jump on and ride the waves. We make the waves and make things happen.
I pray we have learned not to fall for the old “He’s a great guy but he can’t win”, trick from the Govinator disaster.
We know Duncan Hunter and his record. He is a man of the people. His son has been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. His home burned down in the 2003 Cedar fires. He’s never forgotten the people serves.
Today we have the opportunity to enhance his influence for us nationally by endorsing Duncan Hunter – a California favorite son by the people who know him best.
Let him be our voice on the national stage as CRA helps energize his campaign. We know he will not let us down or compromise our principles. Please vote for Duncan Hunter!
November 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
After reading the above post, we would like to set the record straight.
Amongst delegate activists Senator Thompson was dead even with Romney. So what does this mean?
Sylvia, a Hunter supporter said it well.
“What I saw at the convention was sad but unfortunately, not unusual or unexpected. We reaped the fruit of a disturbing trend in CRA. The practice of shell units started up for the purpose of endorsing a particular candidate done on a grand scale. This coupled with a big bucks candidate’s campaign paying the way for many delegates to attend and vote for that candidate who’s now suddenly a conservative. Although done by the CRA rules, surely the spirit was violated and CRA was used.”
Senator Thompson’s volunteers worked with people who were at the convention before Sunday and developed a strong relationship with those who hold the spirit of the CRA at hear.
So why did Senator Thompson lose? Senator Thompson lost because there was an onslaught of people who had never been to a CRA Convention (or even a meeting of the chapter they were supposedly delegates of) who came and voted for Romney. Mr. Spence, I would be open to your rebuttal of this point. Staffers who work in Sacramento were registered in CRA Units where they don’t live, though according to CRA rules there is nothing wrong with this.
Based on the current rules of the voting process, many leaders from many different camps are not arguing with the results but we are seriously questioning the process as this truly taints the endorsement of an organization. The winning of endorsements in this manner reflects and exemplifies the roots in which the public views the political process – if you have enough money or have the ethics to not follow the spirit of the law it is acceptable.
I think the same people who got the endorsement would be upset if voters decided to register in places that they didn’t live. (i.e. a bunch of Democrats from Sacramento registering to vote in West Covina and thwarting a School Board election?)
When this presidential election is over, the question will be how can we bring credibility to the CRA endorsement process. The conservative activists who make the CRA the “conscious of the Republican Party” deserve to have their values respected for being the staple of moral conservative movement here in California. Protecting that deserved status should be the highest priority of the CRA leadership. A simple solution to the problems we saw at this weekend would be to limit voting to members who have been a member for at least one calendar year and must represent a club near their residency.
The argument may be made that CRA memberships increase prior to these endorsement meetings and the revenue is needed. To that I argue, let us have less members, more conservatively convicted members, and let us build an organization that is known for an endorsement process not subject to buying shell chapters or proxy votes.
Hold values above all else, keep the spirit of the law instead of trying to work the loopholes in it, keep the leadership accountable to the spirit of the CRA and we will see a growing and solid base.
Richard Rios
November 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I’m a proud CRA member that couldn’t make it. Clearly, Mike is right, Gov. Flip Flops supporters were well organized, and who knows how they had the money to show up. Did they pay for this with their own money?
I have no problem with a member of the LDS church. I personally e-mailed former CRA Vice-President Noel Zimmerman (Howard Kaloogian supporter) and political consultant Joe Justin (Bill Morrow) to get their candidates out of the race when a good conservative named Eric Roach was running against Brian Bilbray and was the best candidate to beat Bilbray (after the Duke Cunningham scandal).
Romney’s problem is that he says one thing when he is running for one office and then another thing when he runs for another office.
Democrats are known for being Flip Flops (think to Kerry’s race for President). However, if Romney wins the nomination, we will be hypocrites when we point out a Democrats flipping and flopping. I’m not saying this endorsement is as bad as the Gary Bauer one. However, I don’t think it was the right one.
With that said, congrats to those that were organized and went after it. They better spend some time in Iowa. The CRA is the conscience of the Republican Party. My conscience says we can’t trust Romney.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I can understand why people get upset when new people join CRA just to support a candidate, whether it is Mitt Romney or any other anyone else. However, that is a major part of the process and it has been part of the process for 73 years. Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and other candidates attracted new members, too.
Keep in mind that the host unit for this Convention, the Placer County Republican Assembly (my club), was founded by supporters of Rico Oller for State Assembly in 1996. Rico had been an officer on the CRA State Board and he understood the process for obtaining a CRA endorsement. There was nothing illegitimate about that. Thanks to Rico Oller and local supporters like CRA Vice President Jeff Atteberry, the Placer County Republican Assembly club is still one of the largest and most active in California.
We have lots of experience with this process, so there is good reason to hope that many of the people who joined CRA to support Mitt Romney will still be around for the next conservative campaign.
Tom Hudson, CRA Parliamentarian
November 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Tom, A CRA Vice-President told me that most of these Romney supporters showed up only for the Sunday vote. They took no part in the Friday and Saturday events. The process for a CRA endorsement for state assembly is a little bit different than one for a statewide and national office, correct (depending upon the number of units within that race)?
November 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
For all the complaints about “paper clubs” this email went out from the Tehama Club President. (a new club) Their club was started with 45 members – including the gal that sang at the CRA convention. I can only hope that all CRA local clubs are doing the same.
For those interested in getting involved in helping place a referendum to put SB 777 on the ballet and to allow CA voters, not legislators to decided what they want their children taught, I have obtained a large number of petitions and can forward them on to you.
I also have information about how to start a petition drive in your areas. After I sent out an e-mail on this a week ago, I recivied an overwhelming amount of e-mail from people wanting to know how to get involved.
Well this is your chance. Get back to me and I’ll send you some more info.
When I first read this online I was skeptical. I wondered how on earth this got passed and why wasn’t it on the news. A friend at church asked me about it, i told him that I thought it was probably an over zealous e-mail thing you know like that one about the FCC stepping in to cancel “Touched by an Angel” etc. But I told him I’d look into it and so I called our State Assemblyman who told me that no, its true.
This isn’t a joke. This is for real. It was signed into law on Oct. 12, 2007. In CA gender is no longer considered a biological factor, but it is now a “personally perceived concept.” School are now going to have to adhere to certain laws that “protect children’s civil rights.”
The disingenuous proponents of SB 777 argue that the bill simply “streamlines” the law and helps “protect” homosexual and transgender youth from bullying. However, such issues of bullying and harassment could be solved by enforcing discipline in the classroom, regardless of its victim’s race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. This can be done without promoting any specific lifestyle choice or forcing a gay or straight agenda on anyone on either side.
Beginning next year:
* California textbooks will no longer be able to use words like ‘mother and father’ and ‘husband and wife,’ because they suggest that heterosexuality is the norm.
* The law allows students to use the restrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex if they identify with that gender. If a male perceives himself as a female, he must be granted access to female locker rooms and restrooms. He must be allowed to participate in female sports activities.
* Banned would be any factual discussion of the health risks of alternate lifestyles or any religious objections on the part of students. Translation, teaching that AIDS has anything at all to do with homosexual activity would be forbidden.
* A school sponsored activity includes sports activities, prom, and other gatherings would also be altered or banned outright.
* If the student wishes to keep his perceived gender status from his parents, the teachers and administration must refer to the masculine pronoun (him/he) when talking to the parents and use the feminine pronoun (she/her) at school. This shocking policy treats parents as the enemy of the transgender student. The enemy of their own children. Teachers are expected to abet the student in keeping vital information from parents.
I want to make it clear that I hate discrimination of any kind. I do have friends who are gay and I’ve seen them suffer and feel like they are second class citizens. As far as sexuality is concerned, I don’t believe that it automatically makes them a good or bad person. Its what they do and how they act that determines that and thats based on what they believe is moral and that is their choice. That is an exercise of agency and not something that I have any right other then to decided for myself if it is right or wrong. Its when groups force it on people that I have a problem with it. I honestly don’t think this should be something that is taught either way in schools. I hope that my friends who are gay won’t see this as an attack on them. It’s not.
However, I don’t think that the government should have the right to force this kind of stuff on us either. I think that parents should be parents. I think that this kind of legislation undermines the important role of parents when it comes to raising children and the role of schools in educating and not indoctrinating. What is ironic is because of separation of church and state, we don’t have the right to talk about God or beliefs in school. But these kinds of laws allow for values to be taught in schools. Some would argue that “well times have changed” or “parents just aren’t doing that” well this isn’t the answer. Schools are to teach children how to read and write and do math. Its not fair to surconvient parents rights for a few children whose parents may be lacking. And no its not alright to bully. But again this could be controlled with better classroom supervision and not laws that force beliefs and values on people.
I’m fairly certain that if this law was reversed and schools had to teach that “heterosexuality” was the norm. That the other side would be out in arms against it and screaming discrimination. So is there any wonder why those of us who believe in true tolerance, who think that it should be up to the person using their own beliefs and not the government to make choices would think that this law is wrong?
November 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Wow, I’m famous!! Thanks Karen for posting my letter. Anyways if anyone would like to comment on what I said, please feel free to send me an e-mail at cjeromecrow@hotmail.com I look forward to hearing from you.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
It’s great when new people join CRA. However, the CRA endorsement’s meaning and credibility,- the value – really is it’s endorsement of true conservative candidates. When California conservatives unite behind a true conservative, then the grassroots activists kick in and work for victory. It is this real excitement and energy that drives us to win. When on the other hand, the 2/3rds threshold is attained by artificial means (shell chapters & money) then the endorsement loses it’s luster and integrity. It is a voluntary grassroots organization that cannot dictate from the top to the bottom levels to get out and work for a candidate. The candidate in this case, has not truly earned the 2/3rds level of excitement and energy.
In San Diego, when this has happened on a smaller scale with other candidates, the results were dismal. Units such as the South Bay, the San Diego City and Alpine for instance,popped up, popped out and then popped off into dormancy.
Time will tell the results of this latest attempt to control CRA.