For those Democrat members of the state legislature who just don’t "get it" when it comes to the conviction of all Republican legislators to oppose raising taxes in California, think about it this way. Let’s create a hypothetical situation where the legislature was in a position to actually reverse Roe v. Wade. How many Democrat votes would be there to make that change? I suspect the answer is zero. And on our side we would say, "Come on, you have so many members, can’t just a few go up on this? We’ll make it a temporary measure, only lasting a few years…"

As a Democrat, you might say that you could never vote to reverse Roe v. Wade. I can hear it now, "That is a core issue for Democrats."

Well, guess what. Stopping new taxes is a core belief for Republicans — it is defining of who we are…… Read More

$200 billion for State bailouts – supported by GOP Governors. $42 billion in California State deficits – undera "GOP" Governor. State GOP Assembly members signaling willingness to increase taxes. Is it any wonder the GOP is at post Watergate lows? Contrary to some our critics, both inside and outside the Party, we have not been "too conservative". In fact, we have not been conservative at all – which is why we are in the shape we are in.

I have been heartened by the US House GOP and their unanimous opposition to the bailout. News analysis of this development has been incorrect. This has not been a partisan drill – but a vote for survival. The truth of the matter is that any GOP elected official voting for a bailout will be subject to a primary challenge in 2010 – and any GOP Assembly or Senate member will be subject to the same. Its time for the base to enforce the last issue we have left – taxes and spending.

Its also time for the State Republican Party to get off of the sidelines and quit dreaming about any progress unless we are active participants in a public campaign to praise our… Read More

I have added up the reported unpaid taxes by various Obama Cabinet nominees and note that without penalties and interest they amount to over $210,000. With penalties and interest, I think Obama’s cabinet owes or owed the Treasury about $300,000. We haven’t figured in what Bill Richardson owes in addition, as his own pay-to-play scandal works itself out in New Mexico.

What were these people, these Ivy League guys in Obama’s cabinet, thinking?

I recall in 1989 when Senate Democrats stopped cold Bush Senior’s Republican-nominee Senator John Tower from being Secretary of Defense, just because they could. Their biggest argument was that he liked to take a drink every few days of what Tower himself termed "beverage alcohol." Not a very apt description, but still, it was not that big a deal. He just liked to drink. (He also liked normal female companionship.) So does everybody else in Washington. And Republican Tower paid his taxes.

Bush Senior nominee Clarence Thomas was almost defeated from his nomination to the Supreme Court because of an alleged statement he made to… Read More

Dick Morris had a piece in the New York Post saying Obama’s stimulus proposal will hurt the GOP politically. Only three percent of all federal income tax payments come from the poorest half of the country, and the Obama plan will funnel more than $50 billion to the lowest half of the country, thereby wiping out any remaining federal tax liability. In most cases, it would trigger a “refund” welfare check. Morris thinks blue collar Americans will no longer be receptive to the message of tax cuts after the Obama stimulus gets delivered. I disagree.

Morris is missing the point that the working people pay far more in other government fees and taxes than they do in income taxes. The Bush tax cuts already took millions of lower income people completely off the tax roll. Those cuts now make it easier to focus on how much a typical lower or middle income American gets withheld out of every paycheck through payroll and other taxes. The proposed Obama tax credit giveaway probably just covers social security taxes for working people.

I agree with Morris that GOP-inspired tax revolts of the… Read More

Politicians will look for any port in a storm. A recent Riverside Press Enterprise column talked about a conversation between the Governor and Assembly Anthony Adams where the Governor reportedly laughed and said that Adams now knows how Schwarzenegger feels when he is on John and Ken, relating to Adams conversation with the talk show hosts about his "openness" to voting for a tax increase.

Adams, of course, is looking for allies wherever he can find them, and, of course, the Governor is a good ally. The problem Adams faces is the same one the Governor faces. The Governor has already publicly indicated his desire to break the promises he made to get elected Governor. Adams needs support because he also wants to break his promises, and he knows that, if he does, he is in trouble, the same trouble as a Paul Horcher or a Doris Allen or a Brian Setencich. These notorious oathbreakers sought power under false pretenses by cutting unholy deals with the Democrats, and lost that power at the hands of Republican voters. Adams, who is a nice guy, could have the same thing happen to him. So he seeks any port in the storm, this time, the port he is seeking is… Read More

I was looking through some of the clippings for the week this morning and read several Republicans talking about Democrats moving us towards socialism. What is happening might indeed might be considered some degree of movement towards socialism, but the language itself is old hat and has no real meaning to anyone who can’t remember the communist threat – just about everyone under the age of 35, a group that the GOP is having real problems with generally. To some degree I don’t think it really has much emotional value to most people older than that. I thought the same thing when I heard our Presidential ticket saying the same thing or something similar. Communism is in the ash heap of history, and with no threat to the western world from that source it just falls flat, whatever the reality.… Read More

A Federal judge in Sacramento yesterday ruled against the Yes on 8 Committee’s motion to protect some of its later donors from public disclosure (due on February 2) because of a persistent, organized campaign of personal and business harassment of prior disclosed donors by supporters of gay marriage, who gleaned the names and addresses of those donors from government records.

The claims made by Yes on 8 are similar to constitutional arguments that won the day in prior cases involving communists and socialists, who claimed they would be harassed and their privacy rights violated if their names and addresses were publicly disclosed by the government in connection with the campaigns of their partys. The Federal Judge in the Yes on 8 case didn’t agree, even thoughthe claims of the Yes on 8 committee were stronger than the other established cases, and supported by real evidence of an organized boycott of businesses and personal harassment of donors who gave as little as $100.

Liberal election lawyers were happy with the result, but concerned that Yes on 8 might have some success by filing an emergency appeal to the Ninth… Read More

On the sixth ballot, we finally have a winner. With a vote of 91 (a majority), we extend congratulations to Chairman Michael Steele!

The challenges before the party are great, and no one person can do it all — but Steele will play a key role in leading our party, and preparing us for our march out of the wilderness.… Read More