Yesterday, I also found out that wasn’t so. The Log Cabin Republican Club, a group that attempts to promote "gay-friendly" policies among Republican office holders, while opposing the tax increases is opposing Prop. 90- the eminent domain initiative, neutral on Prop. 85- Parental Notification and most odd "neutral" on Prop- 83-Jessica’s law a crack down on sex offenses, pedophiles etc…
I get a lot of grief about not towing the Governor’s line on a host of isues. I’d be curuious to know how much grief this club has gotten for not being on board Arnold’s first signature campaign issue.
I know members of this club. In fact I was recently attacked a self-appointed "Christian" activist for speaking with members of he club at the CRP convention. I can’t believe that the Log Cabin Club really wants to be on record as "neutral" on a measure that targets pedophiles and the like that even Angelides says he now supports. See Log Cabin endorsements here.
What possible reason would prevent them from supporting Jessica’s Law? Hmmmm….
October 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
As a Trustee of Log Cabin Republicans, I believe in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. For me Log Cabin represents an important part of the American taxpaying family. I believe this initiative is not responsible to the taxpayers.According to the legislative analyst, Prop 83, commonly referred to as “Jessica’s Law”, under FISCAL EFFECTS, states as follows: “These costs are likely to be in the several tens of millions of dollars annually within a few years. These costs would grow to about $100 million annually after ten years, with costs continuing to increase significantly in subsequent years. ¶Because the measure does not specify whether the state or local governments would be responsible for monitoring sex offenders who have been discharged from state parole supervision, it is unclear whether local governments would bear some of these long term costs.”
When a proposition’s enforcement is projected to cost $100 million annually and the initiative fails to state what body of government is responsible for paying for it, IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO SUPPORT SUCH A PROPOSITION.
October 21st, 2006 at 12:00 am
Yes, Kevin it will cost $100 million to crackdown on pedophiles, child rapists and child pornographers. But, if the Log Cabin Club was so concerned about the $100 million why did the Log Cabin Club support two of the bonds that add $30 BILLION in prinicipal and interest payments to our on going deficit problems? Simply because they chose state over local government as the payee? Hmmm. That doesn’t make sense.
October 21st, 2006 at 12:00 am
I personally did not support them and did not vote for them. (I work the polls so I vote by mail). The $30 BILLION is also wrong and I will be working within LCR to ensure a consistent policy across the board.
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am
Kevin, Your arguements are the same ones used by Mark Leno (and his band of liberals) to defeat Republican Bills(including many of mine) to implement Jessica’s law.
Your comments are very disapointing. If your clubs position is that protecting children is too expensive then thats even more disappointing.
Assemblyman Russ Bogh
October 24th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I’m sure you will be interested in the Orange County Register’s editorial stance where they took a “No” position against Jessica’s Law ballot measure. Here is the url for you. Log Cabin is far more right wing in taking a neutral stance. You really should read why the Register opposes this ballot measure.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/election/propositions/article_1291558.php
October 25th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Kevin I could care less about the Orange County Register’s opinion. I spent six years in the Legislature listening to people make excuses for Sex Offenders. Let invite you to my hometown Beaumont CA where I’ll show you the alley wher nine year old Anthony Martinez was abducted, raped and Murdered by the type of person you are letting off the hook.
Assemblyman Russ Bogh
November 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
I do not support letting anyone off. In fact I fully agree with the Governor on the bills he signed to protect children. What I am concerned about are towns like Beaumont because we do not know if towns like Beaumont will have to foot the entire bill for the law. We need clarification.
Also see the editorial in the North County Times of San Diego County
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/10/11/opinion/editorials/20_12_5610_10_06.txt
November 9th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Within hours after California voters approved Jessica’s Law, a Clinton activist judge blocked enforcement of a controversial provision limiting where ex-offenders may live.
The order by Activist U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco means that implementation of a key portion of Proposition 83, which captured 70% of the vote, will be on hold until its constitutionality is resolved by the courts. A hearing is scheduled later this month.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:00 am
However, the people have spoken and with a 70% mandate, when it comes to funding, I believe that an argument can be made that since the People of the State have decisively spoken, the voter intent can be viewed as intending that the state pays for the costs associated with the law and not the counties or cities.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Add my name as another LCR member who voted for Jessica’s law – its constitutional infirmities notwithstanding – and signed a petition to get the parental consent measure on the ballot, and voted against the bonds, and worked and voted for Chuck Poochigian to be my next boss in the AG’s office, and would have voted against drivers licenses for illegals if that had been on the ballot. In short, add my name to the list of gay GOPers who DO NOT buy into ANY of Mark Leno’s, Carole Migden’s, or Sheila Kuehl’s permissive – cf. “liberal” – agenda but am first and foremost a law-and-order Teddy Roosevelt Republican, and a Vietnam-era Vet to boot!