A couple of weeks ago, the delegates to the California Republican Party Convention adopted a strong, bold platform to serve as the ideological and policy document for the State GOP for the next four years.
Along with many others, I was proud to serve as a member of the Platform Committee that adopted this platform. It represents a lot of work by a lot of people, and I encourage all FlashReport readers to take a few minutes to peruse it. It is broken down into sections and is quite easy to digest. A lot of CRP members took a leadership role in the drafting of this document, certainly worthy of specific mention would be Mike Schroeder, Mike Spence, Mark Pruner, and Laura Gadke, with whom I worked closely in the process. But the overall effort included dozens of great Republicans, and the final version that you have here before you represents an additional five hours of work by the Platform Committee at the convention, with many different additions and revisions. CRP Chairman Ron Nehring and Committee Parliamentarian Bill Baber get a special "endurance" award for their efforts — actually, maybe we all qualify!
The final work product speaks for itself. It is a platform in the tradition of Ronald Reagan — one of bold colors, not soft pastels. I think a special note of thanks is deserved for the folks at Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions, who devoted a considerable amount of their time to helping us "wordsmith" many of the points articulated in this document.
So, without any further introduction, the newly minted California Republican Party Platform!
[You can download the attached file below, or also access it at this link. H/T to the team at Bieber Communications for the great graphics and layout work!]
March 4th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Once again Jon, you have gone off the rails. And, don’t break your arm patting yourself (and your fellow platform writers) on the back. This platform is so full of contradictions it is hard to know where to begin. First, your have a lot of text about agriculture, but you don’t say who the agriculture experts are who designed this plank. As I recall from attending the drafting committee debate, several people objected to the water use text and the text saying “We support cutting in wasteful state government spending in order to support state infrastructure investment in above-ground storage using general fund dollars” is simply silly. Where in the already $15 billion budget do you propose to find the money to build billion dollar dams and million dollar per mile water distribution systems? Next, in your plank on crime and justice, you say you want to build more prisons. But where do you plan to get the money to build these prisons and staff them? In the economy plank, you say you want right-to-work laws, which were soundly and roundly defeated by the voters (and is one of the causes of the decline of the Republican Party). In addition, your platform says you want “first-class physical infrastructure” (don’t we all) but you then say “Infrastructure should be ‘pay-as-you-go’ as soon as possible.” So again, where in the budget do you plan to cut services in order to pay for all this new building (at million or more per mile cost). I could go on and on, plank by plank, pointing out the inconsistencies. But the users of this blog can read it for themselves. Sadly, the platform committee had a document presented to them (the 21st Century platform) but chose to go with this 19th century platform instead. But it did take two votes. The first voice vote was overwhelmingly NO; Ron looked stricken and quickly called for a second vote, which to my ears sounded like NO again, but Ron said “in the opinion of the chair the vote yes have it” and we are stuck in the past for the next four years.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:00 am
LOL. Bob, what you mean to say is that your whole party is “off its rails” as I am just one voting CRP member out of 1500.
I’ve already figured out that you are a “big government” Republican, so I can understand why you might be concerned about a platform that doesn’t include a plank for expansion of the size and scope of state government.
No worries, though. We are a “big tent” party Bob, and so we’ll keep you around!
March 4th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Yawn…actions not words.
When you trot out a decent conservative candidate instead of your beloved kinky milk toasters….then we will believe ya…
In meantime…no new donations!
March 4th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jon, you are going way way way off the rails. What I want the CRP platform to say is this: The Republican Party supports, to the maximum extent possible, getting the government off our backs, out of our wallets, out of our bedrooms and bathrooms and especially out of our doctor’s office. If that makes me a “big government” Republican, then so be it. But spending untold billions on water projects and prisons and so on is, here on planet Earth, by any definition, great big government. And nothing – nothing – in all the words in your 19th century platform, how to pay for it.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Most platform statements are a bit of a joke, appeasing a bunch of segments.
It still has the usual paeans to ‘pro-life’ and “family values’ codewords, which scares a whole buncha swing voters we could get.
New slogan for Ca Republicans: someday, someone just might accidentally get elected to statewide office.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
March 4th, 2008 at 12:00 am
As the youngest member of the platform committee, I am very pleased with the document we produced. By boldly and unapologetically articulating core conservative principles, this platform will serve to inspire our volunteers and donors for the next four years.
As the platform represents a consensus among the members of our party, not everyone will agree with every single word contained in it. That being said, everyone on the committee who wanted to provide input was able to, and all proposed amendments to the more controversial sections such as “right to life” and “family” were provided up-or-down votes. Attempts to water down these sections were all defeated by about 2/3 of the vote, making it clear where our party stands on these issues.
What we can all be proud of, however, is the transparency and fairness of the platform development process. I’d like to thank everyone who served with me on the committee for their patience, cooperation, and hard work throughout.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Yawn. This platform has 0.00001% chance of ever being enacted in California given the pathetic state of the California Republican Party, not to mention how f’d up the rest of the state is.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:00 am
[Rohit Joy wrote:]
“…such as “right to life”
and “family” were provided
up-or-down votes. Attempts to
water down these sections were
all defeated by about 2/3 of
the vote, making it clear where
our party stands on these
issues.”
Yep, it’s indeed clear: the party *leadership* ensures CA R’s are generally unelectable to statewide office.
I personally have no issue one way or the other with those issues, I just know when continuing to tout them means you’re formulating a losing product. It’s so bad now people are willing to pay higher taxes (by voting for Dems) to not vote Republican!
Someday, CA Repub leadership will realize they are selling a product that no one wants. They seem happy in preserving their affirmative action ‘safe seats’ and not much else – just hoping to wrest some tradeoffs during budgeting.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
March 7th, 2008 at 12:00 am
2/3rd’s of the platform delegates voting for that right to life plank does not mean that 2/Rd’s of the party is for that issue. It simply means that the far right religious wing of the CRP hold 2/Rd’s of the votes on the committee. These are the people who want to send a message and do not care if they win elections.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Sorry for the problem in my posting above. The posting should read: 2/3rd’s of the platform delegates voting for that right to life plank does not mean that 2/3rd’s of the party is for that issue. It simply means that the far right religious wing of the CRP hold 2/3rd’s of the votes on the committee. These are the people who want to send a message and do not care if they win elections.