Last Remnant in California of Republicanism is GOP Platform: Will it Change?

How do you know a Republican? The way I try to discover if someone is truly a Republican is to ask them about their principles and values. When a smart attorney type tries to use words that look like one thing but mean another, I understand they are hiding something. When someone leaves out an important element of an issue, like amnesty makes illegal aliens “legal”—so they qualify for citizenship and to get to the head of the line, I am concerned.

If you try to tell me that pro-lifers SUPPORT abortion—who are you trying to fool? Sounds like Obama claiming not to be a bigot. Believe this? ““Most Republicans pro-life and pro-choice believe the difficult decision to have an abortion in the first months of pregnancy is best left as a private personal and family matter.” That is the proposed words. Just a hint—pro-lifers are pro-life.

The media will laugh at that language and anger will come from Republicans. Worse what happens when the Pro-Life Council, the national blogs and others make this into a national story?

Photo courtesy of DonkeyHotey, flickr

Photo courtesy of DonkeyHotey, flickr

Last Remnant in California of Republicanism is GOP Platform: Will it Change?

Editorial by Stephen Frank, California Political News and Views 7/28/15

This is the status of the California Republican Party:

  1. Thanks to Prop. 14, the measure that outlaws political parties from nominating candidates for office, the California Republican no longer, nor its members can select candidates for partisan office.
  2. The California Republican Party has given up registering voters. Instead an outside operation controlled by one man targets registration areas and areas not to be touched. Neither the Board of Directors or the full membership voted to give an outside group this power.
  3. For many years the California Republican Party gave financial assistance to the largest counties in the State and sometimes special aid, like registration efforts, to the smaller counties. This has been ended. Instead one man personally gives money to selected counties.       This is not determined by the CRP Board or the CRP membership.
  4. Currently there are two CRP conventions a year.       It has been openly discussed that at the September convention we would vote on a by-law change—to make it one convention a year. One convention in even years to vote on support of ballot measures. In odd years an organizational convention.       The bigger news is that those behind this change appear to want the convention to last a single day. In other words, no training, no education, little time to network—eat, burb and vote would be the new process.
  5. Thanks to by-law changes, it is almost impossible for the CRP to endorse candidates in the primary. Unless a candidate is the only Republican on the ballot and possibly no Democrat or third party, there will be no endorsements. Actually, this may be a good thing—do we want a few people to decide for the millions of real Republicans to make these recommendations?

That leaves us with the last remnant of being a Republican in California.—the Platform of the California Republican Party. Four years ago there was an opportunity for the “embarrassed” Republicans to change the Platform—in the Drafting Committee they recommended a Platform that was a weak Republican set of values and principles. The full Platform Committee overturned that decision and the body approved “A Republican Platform for the Republican Party”.

Now it looks like the embarrassed Republicans are again trying to make the GOP seem more like the Democrat Party. These folks are great in using words—and then re-defining them to help hide our real values. Take same-sex marriage for instance. (I will be referring to the main Platform proposal (PP15)l that seems to be the Platform proposed by those embarrassed to be a Republican.

  1. Marriage and Family: “At the same time the California Republican Party recognizes the right of same-sex couples in California to enter into a State sanctioned marriage that affords them all the civil legal protections the State offers to heterosexual couples” The voters and the people of California were perfectly clear, marriage is between a man and a women. Yes, the Supreme Court approved it and ended the 10th Amendment.       That still does not make it our view or policy. Just as the GOP continued to oppose segregation after the Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott case, the GOP as policy does not have to support a decision that takes away the rights of States.
  1. Immigration: “No person who entered the country illegally or who remains here illegally should be granted the right to process an immigration application ahead of anyone playing by the rules and seeking to enter legally.” What this really means is that the amnesty proposed to be given to 87% of the illegal aliens by President Obama, makes them here LEGALLY—hence can go ahead of honest people. No where does it oppose amnesty—why not.       This, by the silence will put the California Republican Party on record in favor of amnesty. If I supported amnesty I would be a Democrat.       This one section will cost us votes in November, 2016 and gain us none.
  1. Right to Life/Abortion: “Most Republicans pro-life and pro-choice believe the difficult decision to have an abortion in the first months of pregnancy is best left as a private personal and family matter.” What? Pro-lifers do NOT believe in abortions as a personal matter. In question in the pro-life community is abortion based on rape, incest and the life of the mother. The way the embarrassed Republicans want it worded is to make pro-lifers really pro-abortion advocates. Just not true. But if passed, pro-lifers will see the California Republican misrepresenting their views. Added to this we know that the major purveyor of abortions, Planned Parenthood, was founded by Margaret Sanger, a hater of blacks, Jews, immigrants and non-Aryans. Currently we know that Planned Parenthood has been selling body parts of the babies they abort—is this a conflict of interest by the “counselors”, knowing the agency make bucks out of an abortion?
  1. Right to Bear Arms: As written, it is a strong support for the Second Amendment.       Until, you realize it does not mention concealed carry. Like the immigration section where silence on amnesty puts us in favor of amnesty, this section is silent about concealed carry. What good is a firearm in a locked box, without ammunition in it at your home, if you are in downtown Los Angeles and attacked? This section is smartly worded non support for the Second Amendment.

This is just a cursory over view of some key sections of the proposed by-law…supports amnesty, opposes concealed carry, pretends that pro-lifers support abortions and tells us the Tenth Amendment is wrong—plus we should have supported segregation implemented by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case.

The good news is that Saturday the Drafting Committee can assure a “Republican Platform for the Republican Party” Words matter. Missing words matter even more.

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.