Drill now...or $8 per gallon gas? What is your choice?

Like many of you, I've been listening to the daily talk shows on both the radio and on cable discuss the oil crisis. I believe that unless the Democratic Congress figures out how to get gasoline back down under $4 per gallon, the energy crisis will be a much bigger factor on the November election than the Iraq War or anything else Democrats can stir up. Let's face it: the Iraq War has not been the primary factor in the November elections since 2002 (yes, BEFORE we went in!) when Republicans (and Democrats) campaigned on a strong forceful approach to Iraq. In 2004, Senator Kerry had plenty of skeletons in his closet that our Swift Boat friends were happy to enlighten us about. In 2006, the Republican Party had both entangled itself with various scandals and Democrats did a good job of exposing the wasteful government spending of Republicans. In 2008, I believe the issue that will eclipse the Iraq War will be the cost of gasoline and what each candidate (at all levels) proposed to do about it.

This is where we have a HUGE advantage! Regardless of your income level, political affiliation, or other concern, everyone is affected by the price of gasoline. Even my mass transit friends who still ride the MAX bus from San Pedro to El Segundo (and hence do not commute in a car) have to purchase groceries and other things that are becoming more expensive due to the cost of transportation. Lower income families are affected the most, as they are seeing a higher percentage of their disposable income having to go to the rising cost of gasoline and related expenses. So...our new leaders HAVE to have viable solutions to this growing problem.

The ideas coming from the Democrats center around this basic premise: We have to find someone to BLAME! It's either the speculators, or the naughty SUV drivers (like me) or maybe even the greedy oil companies that want to (heaven forbid) actually make a profit doing business. The latter two "causes" have recently become less promoted by Democrats, likely because most of their fellow voters are also driving SUV's, and voters are starting to see that adding taxes to businesses like oil companies will simply raise the prices at the pump. (Remember - businesses don't pay ANY taxes! Consumers do when the increase costs are flowed into the prices of goods and services.) I particularly like the recent emphasis on blaming the speculators, particularly because Democrats won't admit that the solutions proposed by Republicans would actually address the issue of speculation.

Republicans have been leading the fight to declare now as the time to consider drilling oil domestically. Presidential candidate John McCain has recently acknowledged that high prices combined with our dependency on foreign oil have re-prioritized our need to explore and utilize our natural resources while our technological advances are busy working to strengthen viable energy alternatives. While I hope that all states with oil resources will choose to tap into them, I think McCain has the proper position that gives states the right to decide whether they will drill. (This is one of the basic tenets of the Republican Party - states' rights over federal rights as much as possible). All three states with the most oil reserves, Alaska, California and Florida, are experiencing recent increases in their unemployment rates. Opening the opportunities for oil companies to invest in drilling operations in each of those states will almost assuredly increase employment. What else will it do? Increase supply, of course!

But Democrats claim that we would not see any significant amounts of oil from these operations for 10+ yuears. Thought more credible engineers state that we wold see significant amounts within 3 years, wouldn't forecasts of higher oil amounts (even later than sooner) have a significant impact on the speculation of oil volume? So wouldn't increasing the oil supply take away the alleged "power" of the speculators?

This is more of the Democrats' need to have issues with parties to blame, rather than viable solutions that could dry up an issue. Such is the case with the homeless, the state education system and affirmative action. If any of these issues were to suddenly be declared resolved, activists of these issues would be without purpose. Unfortunately for them, they underestimated the will of their allies, the far-left environmentalists, to drive the price of gasoline so high.

Even Senator Obama has been quotes as saying that he thinks prices should be this high, but that he wishes it hadn't risen so fast. I guess he was hoping that we'd all have to wait for him to be elected before paying so much for gas.

Don't worry Senator! With your party in control of Congress, we're on a pace to see $8 a gallon gasoline by October. What will Americans do then?

Much Ado about Laura Richardson

If you're even half as interested in the political scene as I am, you've no doubt read about the financial problems of Democratic Congresswoman Laura Richardson. Being a homeowner and one who had enough "fun" as it was securing one home loan, I was bewildered that Richardson somehow managed to get financed for multiple home loans with a salary that, while not a small one, was far too small to justify the amounts extended to her. Of course, now we're hearing about the sweetheart deal extended to Senator Dodd, but I want to keep the focus locally. Because the issue isn't about having loans extended; what we're starting to learn now is that 1) Richardson may not have been forthright when applying for all of these loans; and 2) she had multiple debts across Long Beach and commitments left unattended to for extended periods of time.

Here's the latest from the Long Beach Press Telegram:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_9624807

But the issue I want to focus on is the "$64 question" everyone is asking: Why didn't the Republican Party run someone against her, and even now, why isn't the GOP engaged in a more active campaign to have her recalled? In answering this question, I often think back to last year around the same time, when we nominated Army Colonel and Iraqi War Hero John Kanaley to take on the upset victor on the Democrat side, Assemblymember Laura Richardson. (Remember she beat a well-funded Jenny Oropeza, rising up the Black Caucus to "defend" the former Miller-MacDonald seat from the Hispanic Caucus). I watched some of my close friends work extremely hard on the Kanaley campaign, and despite having this role model candidate, they watched the 37th Congressional District elect an inexperienced "professional politician" based primarily on her party membership. Based on observing this last year, my assessment of the politics of the 37th district is simple. If you win the Democratic nomination, you've won the seat.

Many have called me or e-mailed me lately to rally supporters to a recall cause. While I would love to see the recall of a fiscally-irresponsible Democratic politician succeed, I am cautious about allocating resources and time in a heavy election year already filled with great candidates I've talked about in earlier posts this year. We need to be careful in spreading our efforts too thin, and in doing so not placing enough effort into winning identified opportunities. Those that have asked me what they should do this year have been directed to one of the local campaigns in our district, which will also help our presidential nominee Senator John McCain.

Another reason why I'm not jumping feet first into the "Recall Laura" endeavors is that I honestly feel that objective investigative forces, including the Long Beach Press Telegram, have done a great job of digging into Richardson's financial history. The last thing we need is for Richardson to be able to use the excuse that all of the reporting of her financial ignorance is simply a "right-wing conspiracy" out to get her. I recommend that we continue to stay objective in our personal analysis of her situation, let the media continue digging, and remind voters that we are not really THAT surprised that a Democratic politician is having trouble balancing her accrued expenses with her income.

After all, doesn't the word "Democrat" automatically imply "fiscally irresponsible"?

June 3rd: Thank you so much...

Now that the dust has settled on the June 3rd Primary Election, it's time for the dust to settle and for us to get to the real tasks at hand: Winning back the 54th AD & securing the White house for another 4 years. But first, I have to thank you all for your phenomenal support and turnout.

Many of you not only voted for me and my slate of "Can-do" candidates, you spread the word extremely well. And the results show it. The "Can-do" slate of seven candidates finished in the top seven, sweeping the central committee election and ensuring a solid team of operationally-minded members for the 2008-2010 term. This new group takes over in November, and I am extremely excited for our local campaign strategy for 2009 and 2010. It takes more than just a few members to make a difference, and the next committee will be committed toward helping local Republicans running for city councils, school boards and other local seats get the support they need to start making gains in the 54th Assembly District.

The list at the top of the left column will be your new central committee. First and foremost are the two legislative nominees, Gabriella Holt & Lydia Gutierrez, that we must now dedicate our local resources and efforts to get elected. They are both phenomenal candidates that bring us a new opportunity to take key seats that previous nominees did not, and not just because they represent the significant trend of Republican women taking control. Each has unique traits and skills that they bring to our Party that will enable us to openly discuss the most important issues with Democrats, Independents and fellow Republicans alike.

Lydia Gutierrez will compete well against Democratic nominee Rod Wright for the 25th Senate District seat. Her upbringing and experience as a LBUSD school teacher, plus her activism for children and stronger family values will make many Democrats and Independents consider whether their current parties have represented their values and concerns like Lydia will if given the opportunity to be their state senator.

Gabriella Holt, our Republican nominee for the 54th Assembly District, brings a solid background of experience in the fields of health care, business and education, the three big issues Democrats are hoping to use against our party. Unlike the campaign events prior to the Democratic Primary, the Democratic nominee, Bonnie Lowenthal, will not be able to simply give short, pithy answers and watch her opponent talk herself into a liberal frenzy, like former Democratic candidate Tonia Reyes Uranga did. Gabriella will force Bonnie to either campaign on the issues, or watch as Long Beach figures out what most of us in San Pedro know: It takes more than podium speeches to win the public. This committee will be dedicated foremost to its pledged mission to win elections in the 54th AD, and its primary one has always been and will continue to be this one.

For information on their campaigns, please see my website list in the left column or e-mail me at stammiam@yahoo.com. Your continued support and involvement will be essential in helping our two 2008 nominees win their campaigns.

Thank you again, for your wonderful support. I pledge to continue representing you in the Republican Party and listening to your concerns, locally, in the state and nationally. We have a lot of work to do after a horrible 2006 performance. But this is when we see who has the strength and persistence to rise again and fight for our principles and values.

I look forward to working with all of you this summer and fall to elect our great candidates: Holt, Gutierrez, and McCain!

California now a "Battleground State", thanks to the CA Supreme Court

No doubt many of your have already heard about the California Supreme Court decision last week to overturn the will of the voters in declaring marriage as being between a man and a woman to be "unconstitutional". This is despite the fact that California voters have been very open to the opportunities of domestic partnerships, including child adoption, partner benefits and other laws protecting members of the homosexual community. Rather than accept California as the role model state for others looking for the middle ground to satisfy large majorities on this issue, activist groups like Freedom to Marry and others are challenging California with an "All or Nothing" attitude.

Because of this irrational persistence, there is an increasing tide of conservatives and moderates who just may ensure that the latter is the case.

I have been in Washington, DC this past week, and I read this editorial in USA Today this morning that makes this same assertion. (You know there's problems on the far left when conservatives like me start agreeing with media outlets like USA Today.) Here are the opening paragraphs from the editorial:

"Our view on same-sex marriage: California ruling invites backlash against gay rights
Civil unions, the best solution, are jeopardized by court decision.
Last week, when California became the second state after Massachusetts to allow gay marriage, same-sex couples celebrated and began planning June weddings. Good for them. But the unfortunate and unnecessary impact of the California Supreme Court ruling might well have been to set back the cause of gay rights more broadly.

"The judges ruled 4-3 that gays' inability to get married amounts to discrimination under California's constitution, even though the state's domestic partnership laws give them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

"In other words, pragmatic political compromise on the intensely controversial issue is not allowed in California. It's all or nothing, and recent political history leaves little doubt about what will follow.

"In the three years after Massachusetts' top court legalized gay marriage in 2004, 23 states rushed to adopt constitutional bans on gay marriage. This presidential election year is likely to bring more of the same.

"In effect, California's high court fixed something that wasn't broken. The state's domestic partnership laws have been a model for other states searching for the needed middle ground that addresses the deep-felt national division over gay marriage."


The full editorial, plus opposing views from both sides of the issue, are located here: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/our-view-on-sam.html#more

My take on the ramifications of this ruling is this: the California Republican Party now has a November issue to motivate ultra-conservatives to turn out (and vote for the full Republican ticket), and for moderates (who accepted the domestic partnership middle-ground) to hold Democratic politicians responsible for risking California's status as the original middle-ground state. In my opinion, the persistence of the ultra-left wing activists in the gay-rights community has made California a potential battleground state for McCain.

Why do I believe this?

First, did you notice how quickly Senator McCain scheduled a trip to Stockton after the ruling? Second, have you heard a press release from either Democratic Presidential campaign since the ruling? Senator McCain has already gone on the record as being a defender of the sanctity of marriage between a man & woman, which is still supported by 56% of voters nationwide, according to the Gallup Poll cited in the USA Today editorial. Finally, the right-wing groups that had been pushing for a constitutional amendment about marriage have been given new life, and are now collecting more signatures at a feverish pace.

In our own assembly district, the issue of homosexual marriage will be a volatile one. With Long Beach being a stand-out city on gay-rights issues and activism, no doubt the ruling has been the topic of many local conversations and speeches. But with the heavy concentration of Catholic/Christian Democrats in both East Long Beach and San Pedro who will not be comfortable sacrificing their religious tenants in favor of a secular movement, the 54th Assembly District is going to have plenty of debates and discussions on this topic. Especially after the constitutional amendment measure is confirmed for the November ballot.

If Republicans claim the established middle-ground on this issue by accepting the premise of domestic partnerships while holding the line and protecting the sanctity of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, I believe we will see moderate districts, including our own 54th AD, lean heavily toward McCain and our other great Republican candidates.

Let's hope the far-left Democrat candidates running this fall feel the pressure from the gay-rights special interest groups to keep leaning even more left. The irrational insistence to claim the "M" word (marriage) for themselves has re-opened a Pandora's Box that conservatives and moderates can work together to close in the best interests of all voters.

Special Guest Poster: RPV Council Member Tom Long

While I was beginning to gather information to address the horrific ruling by our CA Supreme Court and our need to rally behind the November ballot measure to make same-sex marriages unconstitutional, I received a very welcome surprise posting from none other than RPV City Council Member and former Mayor Tom Long, the primary Democratic troublemaker on the Peninsula.

Those that volunteered at our PV Farmer's Market table last year remember Tom Long always trying to set up his little table right next to ours, always borrowing pens and voter registration forms, and most importantly...trying to make the feeble argument that we should not be there because we were making the RPV City Council race partisan.

I've brought forward both his posting and my reply and would love to get more postings regarding your thoughts about Mr. Long's assertions.

Enjoy!

Tom Long said...

Turning disputes on local issues into a partisan debate is really unfortunate and does nothing to help address the issues. Those who know my history know that I have endorsed a number of Republicans for local office and that I have not acted in a partisan way on the RPV council. The votes on the issues are rarely divided by party registration.

Sadly the Republican Party 54th District Organization and some of the candidates it has supported have made a mockery of the California Constitution's requirement that local elections be non-partisan.
As for the rest of the blogger's comments, people should not judge issues such as these on party affiliation. I encourage you to get the facts. Most of the facts are available (from different perspectives) on my webpage www.palosverdes.com/tomlong and on www.pvpwatch.com

Tom Long
Councilmember, Rancho Palos Verdes
tomlong@palosverdes.com

John S said...

Dear RPV Councilmember Tom Long,

Thank you for finding my blog and reading it!

I'd like to address your two main assertions from your posting, which I published without edits for the mutual benefit of ourselves and my readers.

To start, we know that both you and Doug Stern endorsed Steve Wolowicz last fall in your re-election campaigns because you both knew that:
a) Steve has a very high base of supporters that would not have voted for either you nor Doug if you hadn't endorsed him. You chose a wise tactic of giving voters a complete slate to vote for, and making sure that the strongest candidate on the ballot was a part of it.

b) You and Doug needed a 3rd person to complete your slate or else risk Paul Wright getting more votes than one of you two. If Steve Wolowicz had NOT been on your slate card, Paul Wright would have easily closed the 80-vote gap and beat Doug Stern.

So your strategy worked and I would have done the same; but your claim of endorsing Republicans is purely for survival, and not proof of any claim of being bi-partisan. When you're willing to look at Republicans over Democrats for key non-partisan races, like say judicial races, then you'll get some credibility. As for me, ask judicial candidate Kathleen Blanchard, a Democrat running against two Republicans, if I'm willing to look objectively and endorse the best candidate regardless of party.

Next, you continue to cite a CA constitutional requirement that local elections MUST be non-partisan and alluding to our November 2007 involvement in the RPV elections as somehow being unconstitutional. This is both sad and mistaken, and your constant harassment of our volunteers at the PV Farmer's Market about this will continue to be challenged by both me and the Republican leadership at the county and state level. For over 30 years, your own Democratic party has been significantly MORE active in local elections throughout the state and throughout Los Angeles County than Republicans until just recently. When you're willing to call out your own party for making elections throughout the state partisan, maybe then I'll give you some credibility. Until then, you're simply another Democratic hypocrite that only complains about something when it doesn't serve your own purpose.

I published both your comments and these because I want my readers to get a chance to respond with comments of their own.

Thank you for affirming what I've been telling my supporters throughout Long Beach, San Pedro, Avalon, Signal Hill & the Palos Verdes Peninsula! We are having an effect, and the tide is shifting!

We know it, and we now know that YOU know it!

John S. Stammreich
Chairman - 54th AD Republican Central Committee

SWEET! I live for this stuff! I hope Mr. Long is ready. Just so he is, I will promise to him that we will be again involved in the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council race in November 2009. And for the other cities in the 54th AD, I promise you we will be there as well when Republican candidates call on us.

It'll all start in Signal Hill in February 2009...

John

Judicial Endorsements for June Primary

Fellow conservatives,

In keeping with my commitment to getting out the word on all of the races for June 3rd, I wanted to talk a little about a friend of mine running for Superior Judge. Even better, I'll let her talk to you herself. She sent out a posting for me to use, and I've included most of it below.

Of note, Kathleen Blanchard has joined with superior judge candidates of multiple parties to create a true crime-fighting team of conservative judiciary candidates. Kathleen received the endorsement of the Lincoln Clubs of Los Angeles County, which is a true sign of a conservative candidate. Here is most of her message below, including the team of candidates I am endorsing for June 3rd. (The list includes both judiciary candidates endorsed by the Republican Party of Los Angeles County - Michael O'Gara & Michael Jesic.)

"Hi everyone! As you know, I am running for judge in the June 3rd election (seat 123). I am writing to solicit your help in getting the word out about the election. There are 11 superior court seats on the ballot, and not much else, so I fear that voter turn-out will be extremely low. What that means is that every vote counts A LOT.

I am asking that each of you send a mass e-mail to everyone you know in Los Angeles County, asking them to VOTE on June 3rd, and to vote for the best caandidate in each of the judicial races.

...(T)ell them about me (a career prosecutor, working in the Hardcore Gang Division, prosecuting gang-related homicides, endorsed by virtually every police officer organization in LA County, the LA Times, Antonovich, Knabe, Cooley, Baca, & more than 30 Superior Court Judges) and/or about my opponents (both of whom were rated "not qualified" by the Los Angeles County Bar Association), or you can simply refer them to my website at www.blanchard4judge.com where they can learn everything they need to know about my race.

In addition to my own race, I have some suggestions about whom to vote for in the other seats. These aren't just friends of mine; they are great prosecutors who have dedicated their careers to public service. Each of them would make an excellent judge. But, again, you don't have to believe me. Each has a campaign website where you can go to see their qualifications for yourself:

seat 69 Serena Murrillo www.murilloforjudge.com
seat 72 Hilleri Merritt www.merrittforjudge.com
seat 82 Thomas Rubinson www.tomrubinson4judge.com/
seat 94 Michael O'Gara ogara4judge.com
seat 95 Lance Winters www.wintersforjudge.com
seat 119 Jared Moses www.mosesforjudge.com
Seat 123 Kathleen Blanchard www.blanchard4judge.com
seat 154 Michael Jesic www.jesicforjudge.com

If you would please pass this information along to everyone you know, wherever they live in L.A. County, and ask them to do the same, I would really appreciate it. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible, so that people can just print out the list & take it with them to the polls. Thank you so much for all of your help! Please let me know if you have any questions."

I plan to compile all of my endorsements into one easy handout that I will send out, and will also try to set it up on this site to download it. This way, you'll have what you need for the polls.

Why the Central Committee elections matter...

Until I moved to San Pedro and got more involved with the County Party, I had never heard of County Central Committees. When I worked campaigns for gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren, Bush 2000, and congressional candidate Tim Escobar in 2002 and 2004, I never once heard of the central committee structure or how they were "supposed" to be working to get out the Republican vote. I have some theories why, but I think more importantly than why past committees have been pretty much irrelevant in the campaigns I have worked over the past 10 years, I want to instill in everyone that reads this why we need stronger and more effective central committees.

I was introduced to the central committee organization in 2006 working for Michael A. Jackson's campaign. My first impression was that the central committee's purpose was to give seven people plus ex-officios a status as being the "Republican authority" of their respective district. They were supposed to meet once a month and discuss opportunities to recruit more Republicans for office. What I saw throughout Los Angeles County were a few members in each district trying to do just that; but I also noticed those that ran for central committee strictly for their own agendas. They assumed that a position on the committee meant coffers of money would open up, and that they were "entitled" to support from every Republican in their district, if not through donations at least every Republican vote in the district. What they failed to do was reach out and ask voters and locally-elected leaders HOW they could earn their support.

My biggest priority for my first term was to learn HOW to earn the support of the local leaders and learn from them how to win elections in their parts of the district. The biggest lesson I have learned is that voters do NOT want activists as legislators, so much as they want leaders that have shown action in their activism. They also want intelligent legislators who work their way up through their local councils, school boards and community organizations. If you look at the Democratic leaders who have been successful, they all came from local elections; so have most of the Republican elected legislators. So it makes sense that we need to get more active in electing more Republicans to our local offices in the district.

So long as we play the Democrats game of "non-partisan" elections, they will continue to win majorities on our city councils. No where is this more evident than in our three primary parts of the 54th Assembly District. In Long Beach, the Democratic Party has engaged in a 12-year effort to maintain an ultra-high majority. They have done this through the unions & special interest organizations, and I have to commend one of my counterparts, Sergio Carrillo, for keeping the "non-partisan" message resonating well. Not only have local Democratic candidates been able to hide behind this, they've even been able to convince Republican voters that local elections are somehow non-partisan. So let me ask a few questions about "local issues" to see if we could afford a little partisanship:

1) Do you like paying MORE property taxes or LESS property taxes?
2) Do you prefer MORE social welfare programs or LESS programs?
3) Do you prefer MORE local government regulations on small businesses, or LESS?
4) Do you prefer MORE crime (through ignoring increasing crime trends), or LESS crime by getting tougher on criminals and gangs (think City of Los Angeles vs. City of Torrance)
5) Do you prefer MORE local government spending or LESS government spending?

I hope now you can see why promoting Republican principles and values in local races is essential. But who should be taking on the responsibility to promote these by finding and supporting local Republicans throughout each district? THIS is the official mission of your local Republican Central Committee, and one that I take very seriously.

So long as I am chairman of the 54th AD Republican Central Committee, local Republicans who seek to make a difference in their city, be it Long Beach, Signal Hill, Avalon, Los Angeles, Rolling Hills Estates or Rancho Palos Verdes, will have a group of Republican leaders behind them. This is why I am running for another term on the committee; because we have work to do in 2009 & 2010.

To close, I have learned of an effort by a few candidates to divide Long Beach (& Avalon) Republicans from those in Palos Verdes & San Pedro by marginalizing the importance of a cross-district level of support. These "Greater Long Beach" candidates are missing a key component in their campaign: Support from ANY Long Beach elected Republican. Meanwhile, I am pleased to state that two of our best Long Beach Republican leaders, Long Beach Councilman Gary DeLong and LBUSD Board member Jon Meyer, have endorsed me, as well as my friend Davina Keiser, for election on June 3rd. I have received numerous other endorsements from across the district, and I have posted them at the top of the left column. Many of these leaders have expressed a desire for our central committee members to work together across the district and help each other when each local race comes up. Those I have endorsed understand this purpose, and voting for these seven will increase the strength of our committee to seek out good Republican candidates and give them the necessary volunteer and operational support to win local election.

I hope you will make sure to vote on June 3rd for myself and my six friends, and spread the word to all of your Republican friends in Long Beach, Avalon, Signal Hill, San Pedro and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. We have a lot of work to do, and a divided committee will have the same problems in 2 years that past committees did. A united committee will be able to effectively take on the unions and special interests battling to take over our local governments and our local schools.

Your vote matters on June 3rd!