Mike Spence’s excellent post below best describes a long running disagreement, between GOP Moderates and GOP Conservatives, about how the California Republican Party should be run.
Everyone complained about the Chairmanship of John McGraw (who I served as Treasurer for) from 1999-2001 but he was the only State Chairman I’ve seen that didn’t hand the keys to the Party over to the: 1. Party nominee for Governor or 2. Party nominee for President. He stood up to the Bush "people" in California in 2000 and was widely excoriated by party Moderates and some Conservatives for failing to "cooperate" (read, become the waterboy for) with Bush’s staff and volunteer leaders here.
Because of McGraw’s "lack of cooperation" (read: he told them to go to hell) we "reformed" the Party so that it is effectively controlled by a small group of leaders (making the Board virtually irrelevant) and handing the Party over to Gerry Parsky from 2001-2004 for the Bush re-election (in which they invested zero money).
The "reforms" have created a series of "Kool- Aid drinkers" for Party officers, powerless to act on their own ideas or principles no matter how offensive our top of the ticket becomes. I call them "tarmac Republicans" because they always get to be on the tarmac when someone important arrives. I used to be one.
I know Duf Sundheim very well, and like him. For as much criticism as he gets for following the Governor’s plans or directives, who can blame him? He did what he was supposed to do as Chairman of the "reformed" Party. I had many conversations with Duf where he confided in me over areas he disagreed with the Governor. But in the end, he had to do his job – supporting the Governor. I don’t expect Ron Nehring or Tom Del Becarro to change this one bit in 2007-09. They’ll be drinking the "Kool – Aid " too, because as everyone knows – the Party can’t raise money without a Governor or President directing the funds into the Party accounts.
So we have a choice – we can be a Party of stalwart conservatism, unable to make payroll due to lack of fundraising. Or a Party of stalwart center left mushy moderation, and plenty of money to fund operations and campaigns. These two choices utterly, positively stink. And the reason is simple. We have yet to identify a conservative leader in this Party that can command the money without help from the Governor / President. And without the money, we can’t operate. It is this quandry we must solve is the Party is ever to be a conservative Party again.
November 12th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Mike, I read your column with interest. Across our country, it is not entirely unusual for top of the ticket campaigns to dominate political party’s during election years. But if I agree with you that in the past we have had an “either” “or” manner in which our party has been run, then it would seem the long-term solution to that quandary is for the Party to become more self-sustaining.
There are opportunities to do that including a real, sustained effort at better New Media (talk radio/internet) marketing and fundraising. It was nearly 3 years ago that Howard Dean created a national phenomenon with internet fundraising that nearly out-did the traditional methods of raising money. Our party, on the other hand, despite the passage of time, has only scratched the surface of those possibilities.
We also need to broaden or volunteer base. Given your point that we have limited resources, it seems odd that we do not do a better job of motivating volunteers and getting them involved. They can provide an invaluable resource.
While I do not claim that either of those are magic talismans for the issues you raise, I certainly believe we could benefit significantly from emphasizing them in the future and I certainly will work on them if I am elected CRP Vice Chair as well as other viable suggestions for making the Party more self-sustaining.
If you have a specific idea, I know you won’t be shy in helping the Party take it to the next level. Tom Del Beccaro
November 13th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I think the key to attracting volunteers and numerous small donations from new donors (as Dean did), is to GIVE US SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN!!!
With all the money that was spent, Arnold won…wow, what a surprise! He would have won regardless of the party’s involvement. And Poizner won…don’t think he needed party money either. Everyone else lost.
When I looked at the ticket, I did not see a cohesive group that had a common goal (i.e. Contract With America). That is what we want to see!!! We want to know that if the anyone on the ticket gets elected, they will do “X”. Instead, it appeared we had every man running for himself and losing for himself…unless he had millions and millions and a weak Democrat opponent.
I think the party basically runs like an inefficient government organization. The party is full of factions who are all pulling in different directions. That is why the para-organizations need to redouble their efforts and mobalize again. Most of them do believe in something and that drives their involvement.
I appreciated Duane’s post about how the College Republican’s got out there and made a difference in some targeted races. That is what has helped us win in the past and will help us in the future.
Whether it be lower taxes, Prop. 13, Prop. 184, Prop. 187, etc., give us a reason to volunteer, give us a reason to donate money, give us a reason to vote,
GIVE US SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN!!!
November 14th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Canada Cooler, an anonymous poster, gutlessly commented on my GOP Quandry post. He obviously is a liberal, because conservative aren’t afraid of making their thoughts known. That having been said, I didn’t claim the McGraw Chairmanship as “the good ole days” I merely pointed out the fact tha a quandry exists and it should be taken seriously. Regarding my service to the Lincoln club, and as a very part time “blogger”, I am quite sure that my volunteer service to the GOP and Lincoln Club over the last 15 years dwarfs our anonymous, gutless friend from Canada. Reveal yourself wimp!
New Comment on The State GOP’s Permanent Quandry
— Canada Cooler
Hey there Mike my good friend.
How you doin, eh?
Couple of things.
The good old days of John McGraw resulted in the Bush campaign spending $16 million dollars with no benefit to any Republicans in California.
Not one dime went to help build a voter list; county party organization; local candidate. Why is that, Mike?
Maybe because they didn’t trust the people in power – oh that would be you and Jon.
And those are your good old days?
The Cooler.
PS…Maybe if you spent less time blogging and more time doing your work in the Lincoln Club two things would have happened – there would have been greater turnout than just a mere 40% in Fresno and your local County Sheriff would have won.