California Republican Party - Leadership Journal

Republican Voters’ Choice of Nominees Will Set the Stage for Victory

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Standriff) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:21:00 +0000

by CRP Chairman Ron Nehring (in Fox & Hounds)

A wave is building in American politics. Whether that wave produces a second Republican Revolution, or a more mild course correction for the nation’s politics, remains to be seen. In any case, victory for the GOP in November hinges on the Republican Party’s success in convincing the American people it is a viable, preferred alternative to the leadership and direction offered by Barack Obama’s Democratic Party.

History is clearly on the side of the GOP. In the last 12 mid-term elections, the party not holding the White House has enjoyed a net gain in Congress and state legislatures in 10 of them. The magnitude of the net gain has historically been in inverse proportion to the President’s approval rating, and President Obama’s is in the tank and likely to remain there. Historically Presidents enjoy little improvement in their public approval during the second year of their term.

How best to maximize the party’s opportunity for victory and build on the party’s recent successes in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts was a major focus of last week’s meeting of the Republican National Committee in Hawaii.

One proposal to demonstrate the party’s commitment to conservative issue positions would eliminate RNC funding for any candidate who did not score 80% on a 10-point ideological litmus test. The proposal was largely symbolic, since most candidate funding in America is generated through individual donations, not support from the national committee. State GOP leaders found the proposal unworkable, and voted unanimously to oppose it. Ultimately, it was withdrawn.

Yet the debate reminded everyone of the reality that candidates are not hand-picked by officials in Washington, but instead are elected in party primaries that are just now getting underway. Unlike Europe’s parliamentary systems, in America, it is the rank and file voters who choose the candidates, not party elites.

While high school textbooks tell us that political parties use platforms to communicate their principles, the reality is that any political party is ultimately defined by its candidates. Every day, candidate statements on issues and votes on important legislation are transmitted to millions of potential voters by the news media and in the blogosphere. By contrast, party platforms are rarely read once adopted.

Just who Republicans nominate in primary elections over the next few months will directly impact the party’s ability to win in November, and govern thereafter.

Put another way, the direction a new, Republican Congress would take will be determined not just by which party wins the majority of seats in November’s general election, but by which candidates voters choose to carry the party’s banner in the primary elections that will take place months before.

Republicans must choose nominees who will prove formidable against their Democrat opponents in the Fall campaign, while also selecting candidates who, once elected, will put Republican ideas into action.

Of course, Democrats also get a vote in how this year’s campaign progresses. The President’s approval rating has tanked as his party took its eye off the economy and instead pursued an unpopular legislative agenda. Yet, in the wake of the GOP victory in Massachusetts, we have seen no sign the White House or the Democratic leaders in Congress plan to choose a governing agenda other than the unpopular one they have pursued so far, marked by stimulus, cap and trade, and health care bills that have proven to be losers with voters, particularly independents.

Finally, it is worth noting that Republican leaders understand that voters expect our elected officials to put Republican policies into action once elected, not merely become moderate Democrats in practice. Today’s Republican leadership believes this, and as a result on issue after issue we have seen Republicans offer constructive alternatives to the Democrats’ liberal proposals, both when the President’s approval was sky high, and today.

The Republican Party is ready to work hard to elect the candidates who are chosen to carry the Republican banner to Washington and Sacramento. Voters should choose wisely. The future of our party, and our nation, depends on it.

CRP Chairman Ron Nehring's Update from the RNC Winter Meetings

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Standriff) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:55:00 +0000

California State Party Chairman Ron Nehring is attending the RNC Winter Meetings in Hawaii and has posted an update on the Flash Report website...check it out HERE.

An Evening with Hon. Condoleezza Rice

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:04:00 +0000

To view PDF click here:
http://www.faithfancher.org/pdfs/Condi_Save_the_Date.pdf

Union Members Backed Scott Brown While Union Officials Backed Coakley

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:25:00 +0000

The gap between union leaders and union members has once again come to light as it was revealed this week that the majority of union households in Massachusetts voted for Republican Scott Brown, while the leadership of the state's AFL-CIO labor union backed Democrat Martha Coakley.

On December 18, Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Robert Haynes declared,

"The Massachusetts AFL-CIO is proud to stand with Martha Coakley because of her proven record of fighting for working families and because of her career of public service. Our Attorney General has always stood for fairness, justice, and opportunity for working families. The Massachusetts AFL-CIO will work hard during this short campaign to add Martha’s voice, values, and talents to the U.S. Senate."

Yet, while union officials predictably threw their weight (and members' money) behind Democrat Coakley, union members chose to make up their own mind. In polling data released January 21st, the AFL-CIO itself reported that union households supported Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Coakley 49%-46%.

Once again, union workers were forced to sit back and watch as the resources they pay into their union are used to support candidates they oppose.

Governor Connects the Dots Between Jobs and the State Budget

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:12:00 +0000

In his final push toward an improved fiscal legacy, Governor Schwarzenegger has boldly drawn the connection between creating a job-friendly state and solving California's long-term financial crisis in his 2010-2011 budget proposal.

The Governor and Republicans understand that the quickest and most efficient way to close the estimated $20 billion shortfall is to eliminate the job-killing policies that have plagued our state, while at the same time reforming the bloated pension system and redefining the relationship between Washington and Sacramento.

The Governor's budget plan is a positive step forward that all Republicans can embrace.

Complete article on the Flashreport

Paul Hegyi: A Solid Republican Leader

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:36:00 +0000

Republican leader Paul Hegyi is someone I've come to respect over the years as someone who understands both policy and politics, and equally important, someone willing to do the hard day to day work necessary to move the ball down the field. This week Paul ended his campaign for the 10th Assembly District, a seat held (for the moment) by Democrat Alyson Huber.

I'm confident Paul will serve in elected office one day. Our party, and our state, need leaders like Paul who are right on the issues, and willing to do the hard work to turn solutions into reality.

San Diego’s Campaign Finance Law Challenged in Federal Court

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:20:00 +0000

Last week, a coalition of plaintiffs asked a federal court to grant a preliminary injunction to keep San Diego from enforcing campaign finance laws that violate the First Amendment. One of the plaintiffs, Phil Thalheimer, wants to be able to spend his own money to announce his run for City Council, yet he is prohibited by the law from so much as mailing a letter that even implies he might be a candidate. Another plaintiff, Lincoln Club, wants to be able to spend as much of its own money as it wants for independent expenditures—that is, spending that is made totally without any coordination with any candidate, while plaintiff Associated Builders and Contractors PAC wants to be able to spend money it raises from its supporting businesses for independent expenditures. Plaintiff John Nienstedt, meanwhile, wants to be able to give more than $500 to the candidates he supports. And, the Republican Party wants to be able to contribute money to its candidates’ campaigns, and make coordinated expenditures on their behalf. Yet, San Diego’s laws prohibit each of these plaintiffs from engaging in these activities.

James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel in the suit, stated, “Each of the challenged laws violates the rights guaranteed to all Americans under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made clear that candidates should never be told that they cannot spend their own money to support their campaign. Nor should any political party be told that they cannot support their own candidates. The Supreme Court has said that groups that want to spend money independent of candidates have the right to spend as much as they want. And, the contribution limits of $500 are lower than any the Supreme Court has ever found constitutional. These laws infringe on the rights of all citizens of San Diego.”

Mr. Bopp further explained that while the plaintiff organizations tend to be pro-business, if the court declares the law unconstitutional, it will benefit labor as well. Similarly, if the court decides that the Republican Party should be able to contribute to its own candidates, other political parties will be able to, also. Mr. Bopp commented, “This is not a lawsuit that will only benefit conservatives. If the court agrees that these laws are unconstitutional, all San Diego’s citizens will be able to exercise their First Amendment rights.”

CRP Chairman Ron Nehring Responds to Radanovich Announcement

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:00:00 +0000

SACRAMENTO -- California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring issued the following statement in response to the announcement by Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA) that he will not seek re-election in 2010 in order to tend to pressing family issues:

"Californians have been incredibly fortunate to have an outstanding representative in Congress fighting for them in Rep. George Radanovich. Throughout his 15 years in the House, George has been a thoughtful, passionate, and committed advocate on the issues facing California's Central Valley including water, agriculture, and jobs.

"All of our thoughts and prayers are with George, his wife Ethie and their son.

"While the California Republican Party must remain neutral in Republican primaries, the emergence of State Senator Jeff Denham as a candidate to succeed Congressman Radanovich is important and demonstrates Republican strength in holding this seat. I am confident we will not only send a new Republican representative to the House for the 19th district in 2010, but we will add to California's Republican delegation as well.

QUICK FACTS ON THE 19th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

2008: McCain 52%, Obama 46%
2004: Bush 61%, Kerry 38%
2000: Bush 57%, Gore: 38%

WALL STREET JOURNAL ON THE GOP HOLDING THIS SEAT

"The eight-term lawmaker's retirement should not pose a major threat to the GOP's chances of holding on to his district-Radanovich ran unopposed in 2008 and John McCain bested Barack Obama in his Fresno-based district by six points, 52%-46%."

California Rep George Radanovich to Retire, WSJ, 12/29/09

CONGRESSMAN DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA) DELIVERS WEEKLY REPUBLICAN ADDRESS

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:00:00 +0000

WASHINGTON – Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) released the following weekly Republican address. The address is available in both audio and video format and is embargoed until 6:00 p.m. ET, Thursday, December 24, 2009.

NOTE: The address is embargoed until 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

Audio of the address is available here.

Video of the address is available here.

TRANSCRIPT:

“I’m Congressman Duncan Hunter, and I represent the 52nd Congressional District of California, the area around San Diego.

“In this holiday season, I hope we all take time to offer thanks and prayers to the men and women of our Armed Forces. Many of these service members will spend the holidays away from home, on the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan, at bases and on ships around the world.

“I understand the sacrifices they are making. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, I quit my job and joined the Marine Corps. Prior to coming to Congress, I was deployed to warzones on three separate occasions, twice in Iraq and once in Afghanistan. Just last month, actually, I had an opportunity to visit with our troops in Afghanistan.

“I know we all wish everyone could be home for the holidays, but this is not a time for sadness or regret. Thoughts of home remind us of why we serve: because we’re proud to be Americans, because we want to pass on to our children the blessings of liberty that we inherited from our forefathers, and because nothing matters more to us than protecting our homes and our families. Our hope is that as a result of this determination and sacrifice, we will never again see our cities and citizens under attack.

“I hope we also take a moment this year to reflect on those suffering here at home. For too many families, this will be a difficult Christmas. One in ten Americans are unemployed. Nearly six million of our citizens have been looking for work for more than six months – the most on record.

“All year long, Republicans have offered common-sense solutions to put more money back into the pockets of hard-working families and to help small businesses create more jobs. We’ve also outlined a plan to lower health care premiums by up to 10 percent. And we have proposed an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy to create more American jobs, ease the strain on family budgets, and clean up our environment. Just as important, these solutions do not raise taxes, grow government, or add to the already skyrocketing debt burden being placed on our kids and grandkids.

“After all the promises and all the spending we’ve seen out of Washington this year, out-of-work families are right to be asking, ‘Where are the jobs?’ Republicans believe our top priority when it comes to the economy should be simple: First, do no harm. So let’s resolve in the New Year to end misguided efforts to create new laws that will cost even more jobs, whether it’s the ‘cap and trade’ national energy tax, the government takeover of health care, ‘card check,’ or even more tax increases.

“Working together, we can make the next holiday season even brighter for all Americans. Thank you, happy holidays, and God Bless America.”

Impact of Presidential Approval on Mid-Term Elections

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:54:00 +0000

By CRP Chairman Ron Nehring
Big Government

Barack Obama’s public approval rating has dropped to as low as 47% in the last week, according to Gallup. Although the President will not appear on the ballot again until 2012, how the public views his presidency will have a direct impact on each party’s performance in next year’s mid-term elections.

The party holding the White House has lost seats in 10 of the last 12 mid-terms, going back to President Kennedy’s 1962 losses. Even in that year, with a 74% approval rating following the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy’s Democrats lost seats in the House. Historically, the public uses mid-term elections to correct for the perceived excesses of the party in power, while the absence of coattail effects may result in some seats reverting back to the party with the natural advantage in the district.

IMPACT ON CONGRESSIONAL RACES. The magnitude of the net losses suffered by the President’s party in Congress has been in direct, inverse proportion to the President’s public approval rating on Election Day. The party in control of the White House suffered the most in 1966, 1974 and 1994 when the incumbent’s approval ratings were all under 50%. High approval ratings of President Clinton in 1998 (66%) and President Bush in 2002 (63%) helped the governing party gain seats in those two years — a historical aberration.

IMPACT ON STATE RACES. The spillover effect of Presidential approval directly impacts state legislative contests as well. The magnitude of losses suffered by the President’s party in legislative races has been similar to those in Congressional contests. The public has demonstrated it will hold state legislative candidates of the President’s party accountable for the President’s actions. The same three cycles when incumbent Presidents were at their lowest mid-term approvals also saw the greatest net loss of state legislative seats for the President’s party. Lyndon Johnson’s Democrats lost 762 legislative seats in 1966 when Johnson’s approval stood at 49%. Republicans lost 628 seats with Richard Nixon at 47% in 1974. While Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 due in part to Bill Clinton’s 46% approval, Democrats also lost 514 state legislative seats that year.

AVERAGE LOSSES. When the President’s approval rating has been above 60% on Election Day, the average net loss has been zero House seats and 15 state legislative seats. At between 50% and 59%, the President’s party has on average lost 12 House seats and 217 legislative seats. And an approval rating under 50% has typically resulted in a wipeout of 41 House and 477 state legislative seats lost by the President’s party. Barack Obama’s approval rating within the last week has hovered between 47% and 50% in Gallup’s surveys.

Presidential approval ratings alone are unlikely to result in any lopsided district changing parties. However, the impact in marginal districts (such as those held by Democrats but won by John McCain in 2008) can potentially be sufficient to impact the final outcome.

...

Link to Big Government.

CRP Statement Concerning Failed Recall Attempt of Republican Councilman Jerry Kern in Oceanside

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:08:00 +0000

SAN DIEGO - California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring tonight issued the following statement:

"Unions attempting to abuse the recall process in a thinly veiled attempt to rig the Oceanside city council just as contract negotiations are set to begin have been defeated, and rightly so. Republican Councilman Kern is an outstanding public servant who was targeted because he was seen as a friend of taxpayers and not a pawn of local labor officials.

"Congratulations to Councilman Kern, the Republican Party of San Diego County, the San Diego Lincoln Club, and the entire team that mobilized so effectively to turn back this blatant abuse of the recall process for financial gain. Tonight's victory is not only a major win for the Republican Party, but for all taxpayers. Oceanside citizens have sent the message loud and clear that abuse of the recall process to rig contact negotiations is unacceptable.

McKeon, Cantor Introduce Resolution Allowing Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients to Fly the American Flag

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:36:00 +0000

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) introduced a resolution, H. Res. 952, allowing Congressional Medal of Honor recipients to properly display the United States flag on their property at all times.

Recent media reports, including from the Mark Levin Show, uncovered a 90 year old Medal of Honor recipient, Col. Van T. Barfoot, who was ordered by his homeowner association last week to remove a flagpole from his yard, where he raises the American flag faithfully each morning.

“I was appalled to learn that one of our decorated Congressional Medal of Honor veterans was being prevented from proudly displaying the Flag of the United States of America in an honorable way,” said Rep. McKeon. “This reminds me of that famous quote by George Washington: ‘The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.’ Our service men and women - especially those living with honors and distinction- should be allowed to fly the flag that represents the very freedoms they fought so hard to protect.”

“It’s a sad day when a veteran of three wars is told he cannot fly the American flag on a poll outside of his home,” said Republican Whip Cantor. “Col. Barfoot made countless sacrifices, wore our country’s uniform with honor, and has earned the right to proudly display the American flag. I thank Col. Barfoot for his service and support his patriotism and efforts, as well as those here in the House, to allow him to fly his flag.”

Barfoot resides in Henrico County, Virginia.

www.McKeon.House.Gov

List of New Federal Bureaucracies Created in Health Care Bill

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:11:00 +0000

The House Republican Conference has compiled a list of all the new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi's government takeover of health care:

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)

2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)

3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)

4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)

5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)

6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)

7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)

8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)

9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)

10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)

11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)

12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)

13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)

14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)

15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)

16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)

17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)

18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)

19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)

21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)

22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)

23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p.. 718)

24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)

27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)

28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)

29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)

30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)

31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)

32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)

33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)

34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)

35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)

36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)

38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)

39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)

40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)

41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)

42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)

43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)

44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)

45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)

46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)

47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)

48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)

50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)

51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)

52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)

53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)

54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)

55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)

56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)

57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)

58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)

59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p.. 1330)

60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)

61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)

62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)

63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)

64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)

65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)

67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)

68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)

69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)

70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)

71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)

72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)

73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)

74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)

75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)

76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)

77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)

78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)

80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)

81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)

82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)

83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)

84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)

85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)

86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p.. 1611)

88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)

89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)

90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)

91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)

92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)

93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)

94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)

95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)

96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)

97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)

98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)

99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)

100.Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)

101.Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)

102.Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)

103.Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)

104.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)

105.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)

106.Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)

107.Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)

108.Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)

109.Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)

110.Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)

111.Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

CRP Statement on Barbara Boxer's Senate Health Care Vote Tonight

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:01:00 +0000

SACRAMENTO - California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring issued the following statement this evening:

"Tonight Barbara Boxer put her liberal ideology first as she brought America one dangerous step closer to government-run health care.

"Her vote paves the way for Harry Reid's and Nancy's Pelosi's health care vision to become reality, together with the higher premiums, higher taxes, Medicare cuts, and taxpayer funded abortions that are all part of this plan.

"The 2009 elections demonstrated that Americans have become increasingly disillusioned with the Democrats' agenda of government bailouts and takeovers with their massive deficits, out of control spending, government owned auto-companies, an energy tax, and now government health care. At a time when California's unemployment rate has hit 12.5%, well above the national average, the job and wage losses the Pelosi-Boxer health care plan will impose come at a time when Californians can least afford it.

"Her vote for more government control in our lives and our health care is just the latest reason we're looking forward to sending a new United States Senator to Washington representing California next year.

CRP Statement on the Passing of Hon. Nao Takasugi

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:30:00 +0000

SACRAMENTO - California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring issued the following statement this evening:

"Each of us at the California Republican Party is saddened tonight by the news that former Assemblyman Nao Takasugi of Oxnard has passed away.

"Mr. Takasugi led an extraordinary life, from his studies at UCLA, to an internment camp for Japanese Americans during World War II, to later serving as the Mayor of Oxnard, and finally as a member of the California State Assembly. Tonight we all take the time to recognize an extraordinary man, and an extraordinary Californian.

Nao Takasugi served in the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1998, during which time he served as the chairman of the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. He was a graduate of Temple University and Wharton School of Business. After leaving the Assembly he went on to serve as the chairman of the Oxnard Harbor District Board of Directors.

CRP Statement Concerning Government Regulation of Internet Political Activity

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:45:00 +0000

SACRAMENTO - California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring today issued the following statement concerning government interest in regulating activities related to campaigning online:

"By including Democrat candidates for California elected offices as recommended users and omitting Republicans until only recently, Twitter has drawn the attention of those in government interested in opening the door to state or federal regulation of online campaign activity, including social networking sites.

"Twitter's announcement that it intends to do away with its suggested user list is a good idea, at least as it applies to candidates. Through a system where corporate executives chose which individuals, including candidates, were recommended, the company put itself in the position of appearing to provide something of value to some candidates over others. It should be no surprise that zealous bureaucrats might seize the opportunity to use this as an excuse to regulate the company's service.

"The notion that some government bureaucracy is going to be able to keep up with, let alone regulate, campaign activities online defies reality. We're seeing a rapidly evolving environment where much of the communication in society is now taking place online, using tools that rise and fall in popularity overnight. Trying to apply cryptic, cumbersome campaign finance rules written for another era to this new forum would be an exercise in futility, but I'm sure there are plenty of bureaucrats more than willing to do it anyway.

"In advance of the FPPC's hearings on the subject, here are a few questions that demonstrate our concerns with proceeding down this path:

How shall disclaimer rules be applied to tweets on Twitter? Since messages using the service may not exceed 140 characters, the disclaimer may in some cases be longer than the message itself. Does a "Paid for by message..." need to be included when the service itself is free? Does it make a difference if the person generating the tweet is a paid campaign staffer or an unpaid volunteer?
What is the in-kind cash value of a Twitter follower? Twitter recently featured several prominent Democrat candidates, and later Republicans, as suggested users on the site, helping to generate tens of thousands of followers for these candidates. If such a listing is to be considered an in-kind contribution, how shall it be calculated?
If a candidate has an ad on Facebook, but is charged only when someone clicks on the ad and is taken to a landing page, does a disclaimer as to who paid for the ad need to appear on the ad, or just the landing page?
What agency has the regulatory authority to impose regulations on Facebook or Twitter? What jurisdictional boundaries apply? Can rules be applied, and enforced, if these sites store their data on servers located outside of the United States?
Finally, what is the compelling government interest in adopting new regulations applying to online campaigning and communications?

Barack Obama Proves He’s No Bill Clinton

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:50:00 +0000

By Ron Nehring

Chairman of the California Republican Party
Fox & Hounds Daily

Milton Friedman famously observed that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. In the political world, the Democrats have learned that something of the reverse is also true: there is nothing so temporary as a permanent political trend.

One year ago, Democrats were proclaiming they had established in 2008 a winning political coalition that would last a generation. Independent voters had joined labor unions, ethnic and other groups to form an invincible coalition that would guarantee Democrat victories for the foreseeable future.

Well, the “foreseeable future” lasted about as long as a failed one season comedy on NBC.

What a difference a year makes. Today, Democrats are clearing out of two governor’s offices while Republicans are preparing to move in. A Republican is preparing to take a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, four counties in New York State fell this month, and the list goes on.

“Hope” and “change” may have been enough in 2008, but that didn’t cut it in 2009.

How, and whether, Democrats choose to adapt to this new political environment will directly impact Republican prospects in 2010.

Yet, Barack Obama is proving he is no Bill Clinton. He is proving this through his governing style since taking office, and in his response to the November 2009 election.

In 2008, Barack Obama successfully appealed to the center of the American political spectrum, but he did so in a fundamentally different way than Bill Clinton did in 1992. In that year, Clinton actively campaigned as a “New” Democrat: moderate, reasonable, centrist. He campaigned on a middle class tax cut, challenged leftist cultural norms with his “Sister Souljah” speech, championed passage of NAFTA and expansion of free trade.

While Clinton appealed to the American center ideologically – through issues as well as rhetoric – Obama appealed to the center only rhetorically. That is, Obama did not embrace a centrist policy agenda during the campaign, or after. Instead, he appealed to the center by emphasizing to no end that he would move in a different direction than the unpopular President Bush. It was enough to win without compromising himself as the die-hard liberal we all knew him to be.

Consequently, Obama has not pursued a centrist policy agenda that would produce bi-partisan support.

He should have.

Consider how different the political world would be today if the President and Democrat congressional leaders had put forth a stimulus package that could garner a hundred Republican votes. Granted, it would have had to be a different package, perhaps with half as much spending plus permanent tax and regulatory relief.

What if their “cap and trade” (energy tax) bill was coupled with a strong dose of permanent regulatory and tax relief that would cause domestic energy production to surge?

And what if Democrats had passed a health care bill in July that was narrowly tailored to the specific failures of our health care system, rather than a back door government takeover through the very unpopular “public option?”

Had this been the case, President Obama’s public support would likely be in the 60% range as Americans responded positively to a leader making good on his promises without offending their sensibilities. Republicans in Congress would be divided between those who voted for Obama’s legislation and those insisting on opposing it. The President would have remained an asset to the Democrat candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey. Jon Corzine would have likely won a narrow victory. The 2009 election would have failed to send a clear signal. Republican disarray would be considered a political given for the rest of the 2010 cycle.

Instead, Democrat insistence on a fundamentally leftist policy agenda jammed through Congress without any bipartisan support has had the following effects:

The Republican base is energized, as demonstrated not only by turnout at anti-tax rallies but also in the voter turnout statistics from the November election.

Independent voters have been fundamentally turned off, shifting to Republicans by a 22% margin according to Gallup. This shift has led to a 4% advantage for Republicans in Gallup’s generic ballot strength.

With the dramatic decline of his public approval, the President has become a liability to his party’s candidates.

One would think that the Democrats’ rapidly dimming prospects would prompt a fundamental reassessment of the party’s policy agenda. And here Barack Obama is also proving he is no Bill Clinton.

Following the Republican landslide of 1994, Clinton tacked to the center. He proclaimed “the era of big government is over.” He signed a Republican welfare reform bill that broke the cycle of dependency. Taxes were cut. The budget was balanced. Even the dreaded 55-MPH speed limit was repealed.

Yet, rather than learning the lessons of the 2009 election by shifting to a more centrist agenda, Barack Obama and the Democrat leadership in Congress are plowing ahead with the very same health care reform plan that has already proven to be so unpopular.

In fact, the Democrats’ actions in Washington reflects a mentality of: “we have the majority now, we’re not going to have it for long, and we’re going to jam through every last bit of our agenda that we can before we have to start compromising in ’11.”

Call it, “the Chicago Way.”

Yet while the economy continues to languish, Democrat tactics and strategies have managed to stimulate one thing: the Republican Party.

...

Link to blog here.

The Hypocrisy of Jerry Brown, California's Top Cop

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:54:00 +0000

By Ron Nehring

Big Government, November 12

The Communications Director for California Attorney General Jerry Brown resigned last week after admitting he regularly taped telephone conversations with reporters without their permission. Under California state law, the recording of private telephone conversations without consent is illegal. Although the Attorney General’s Office worked to shut down the story by calling it an internal personnel matter, the potentially illegal behavior of a senior staff member to California’s top cop raises some serious questions.

Here’s one: How can one of the most powerful law enforcement officials in America not know his communications director routinely engaged in activities that may have been unlawful?

Or, how is it that only this senior member of the staff knew this was occurring as they currently claim?

Since we know the conversations on the tapes were transcribed, who provided those transcriptions? Was it an internal staff member? If it was an outside service, who approved the payments for such service?

Any logical line of questioning (especially from an office full of state attorneys) would seem to lead to two possible conclusions: either procedures in one of the highest profile law offices in the nation are woefully inadequate and ineffective; or, other members of staff knew what was going on and are now concealing their earlier knowledge.

Either conclusion is a disaster for a man who frequently brags of the benefits of four decades of political experience.

The irony here is that while Jerry Brown has chosen not to investigate the matter further, his office is currently pursuing the makers of the recent videos that exposed ACORN’s corrupt practices based on the same legal grounds. Apparently California’s Attorney General thinks that he and his cohorts can sidestep the very laws that they are using as justification for their investigations of ACORN filmmakers James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles.

Unfortunately, it appears Brown may manage to casually sweep this scandal under the rug while breezing into the Democratic Party’s 2010 gubernatorial nomination. With the sudden departure San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom from the race last week, Brown currently has no other opposition in the race to win the nomination of the party that likes to lecture everyone else about diversity.

The bottom line is that Brown displayed serious management deficiencies that allowed a senior member of his staff to go rogue under that neglected leadership. His double standard policy for the investigation of possible crimes under the law conveniently keeps his political pals out of the fray while aggressively going after those who exposed the problems at ACORN.

At least we know who that group will be campaigning for in 2010.

...

Link to posting.

CRP Praises CA Republicans on Health Care Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:54:00 +0000

SACRAMENTO -- Citing the higher taxes and massive expansion of government control over individual health choices that will result from Nancy Pelosi's health care bill, California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring tonight praised the members of the state's Republican delegation in the House of Representatives for voting unanimously in opposition.

"California's Republican Members of Congress tonight stood together on the side of the American people and against a giant, costly new health care bureaucracy that will transfer decisions about Americans' health out of the hands of patients and doctors and into thousands of bureaucrats' little cubicles in Washington DC," said California Republican Chairman Ron Nehring.

"Nancy Pelosi's legislative monstrosity will make health care more expensive for families, raise taxes, cut Medicare, and put bureaucrats in between doctors and patients. Other than that, it's a great bill," he added. "Republicans will continue to support fiscally responsible health care reforms that empower patients and doctors, not bureaucrats, trial lawyers and tax collectors."

California is represented by 19 Republican Members of Congress, each of whom voted against the Pelosi bill this evening.

"Tonight's vote demonstrates Democrats have no interest in learning the lessons of the 2009 elections that gave Republicans control of two governor's offices plus many state and local government posts. As the Democrats lurch further to the left, we'll seize the opportunity to teach those same lessons again in 2010," Nehring said.

New Federal Bureaucracies Created in Pelosi Health Care Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:27:00 +0000

The House Republican Conference has compiled a list of all the new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi’s government takeover of health care:

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. “No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza” demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

Campaign Finance Laws Giving Government Excuse to Regulate Online Content

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:20:00 +0000

By Ron Nehring

Chairman of the California Republican Party
Fox & Hounds Daily

Thankfully, Internet content remains largely free of government intrusion and regulation. Americans are increasingly going online for news, to plan their travel, and perform other everyday tasks like banking and keeping up with relatives. They’re also going online for the information they need to determine how they will vote. As candidates and parties consequently step up their online presence, outdated campaign finance laws are giving the bureaucrats a new opening to impose restrictions and regulations on Internet content.

Consider Scott Wagner, the candidate for St. Petersburg mayor whom the Florida Elections Commission ordered to take down an online ad because it didn’t include a “Paid for by” disclaimer. Wagner argued the “paid for by” disclaimer should not have been required because it was only “paid for” by someone once it was clicked on, not before.

The possibilities for absurd regulation of online campaign content are endless. Consider this: As the FPPC takes a look at regulations involving California state and local candidates, should Twitter or Facebook recommending a candidate’s page or account be followed constitute an in-kind contribution? It will be interesting to see what the FPPC says, for if it determines such recommendations are in-kind contributions, will the Federal Election Commission do the same? If so, such Twitter and Facebook recommendations would constitute an illegal corporate in-kind contribution to the candidate.

Taken a step further, will the operators of sites such as Twitter and Facebook be required to track which accountholders are candidates, or potential candidates? And if these rules become too silly or complicated, what of sites that choose to be based outside of the United States? What if they are already? How much does it take to transfer your website to a server in Mexico?

So here we see the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent as regulatory busybodies in 50 states, six territories and the federal government all potentially consider how to impose new rules on Internet content all in the name of “fairness.”

Many of today’s state and federal campaign laws have their origin in the 1970’s, and today’s bureaucrats are attempting to apply those rules to a rapidly changing 21st century communications environment where websites and email are giving way to Twitter and Facebook as the latest communications powerhouses, often with little or no marginal costs to candidates. Government bureaucrats will never be able to keep up with the changes in how American voters and candidates are communicating.

Perhaps this is a time to consider an alternative to promulgating thousands of additional pages of regulations governing political speech, and instead consider taking steps deregulating and decriminalizing political advocacy and discourse. Today’s governor’s race in Virginia is being waged in a state with no contribution limits to state candidates, and none of the reams of regulations that typically govern the application of such limits to fundraising, spending, and the like. Seems like democracy is functioning pretty well without such restrictions on speech. The bureaucrats should take notice.

...

Link to posting here.

President Obama's Pattern of Bad Policies and Failed Efforts

noreply@blogger.com (David Saenz Jr) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:16:00 +0000

President Obama's most recent failure to get the 2016 Olympics to come to Chicago, is just another example of how Obama's "hope" and "change" mantra has, in reality, only produced disappointment and failure.

President Obama's inability to push Chicago through even the first round of the Olympic selection process, despite his lobbying trip to Denmark, highlights a developing pattern of failed efforts and faulty policy decisions by this president and his administration.

To refresh your memory, let's take a quick look at the some major failed reforms and proposals, both domestic and international, that Obama has spearheaded in only his first 9 months as president. Keep this in mind; these failures occurred while the Democrats are the majority leader in both houses of congress.

Stimulus - President Obama and the democrats rammed the nearly $800 billion dollar stimulus bill through congress as quickly as possible, promising that the stimulus package would "create or save 3½ million jobs over the next two years" and "would keep unemployment under 8%." Not only has this expanded the reach of government into private industry, but thousands of people continued to lose jobs every month at a record paced and employment in U.S. has reached 9.8%.

Obama's Stimulus Package: Failed

Healthcare - President Obama ‘guaranteed' that his universal healthcare reform would get passed this year. Lack of public support, inaccurate accounting for the cost of the bill, and push back from members of his own democrat party, has stalled his version of the healthcare bill from even getting out of a congress that is controlled by his own party.

Obama's Healthcare Bill: Failed

Foreign Policy - President Obama has traveled down the dangerous path of appeasing and playing nice with nations that wish us ill in hopes that they will play nice with us. He has tried to open a friendly dialogue with Iran without any preconditions and for this Iran recently admitted to having a second nuclear plant, and by all appearances, is closer than ever to developing nuclear weapons with no intention to stop. In addition, he pulled the plug on the US's missile defense shield in order to appease Russia. We abandoned and angered all of our allies in Eastern Europe, yet Russia is still not playing any nicer.

Obama's Foreign Policies: Failed

Closing Gitmo - One of the first things that President Obama did when he took office was to sign an executive order which set a deadline of January 22, 2010 for closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. But President Obama's plan is stalling and has already missed key initial deadlines. The Senate voted 90-6 against appropriating funds for closing the base. The House also went on record last week opposing bringing Gitmo detainees to the US.

Obama's Plan to Close Gitmo: Failed

The War in Afghanistan - President Obama has taken a stand pat approach in Afghanistan and continues to ignore the requests of his top commanders for the deployment of more troops to fight the growing strength of the Taliban. Not only is he not giving General McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the men he has requested, but he has ordered them to stop bombing before they go into areas, which means we don't suppress the terrorists - making our troops more vulnerable to attack and raising the casualty toll.

Obama's Promise to Improve the War in Afghanistan: Failed

Although these are the most glaring, these are only a fraction of the failures that the Obama Administration has compiled in the infancy of his term.

Let's hope the US Olympic team performs better in 2016 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The New Political Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:44:00 +0000

The state of American politics is today fundamentally different than when President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid became the triumvirate of the legislative and federal branches of our government.

Less than a year ago, Barack Obama and the Democrats won a national election giving them total control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. With Al Franken's belated Minnesota victory, they even have a filibuster-proof majority in the upper house.

It's an enviable position. Or at least, it was.

In the months since, President Obama has experienced the steepest decline of public support for any modern president other than Gerald Ford following Watergate, as columnist Charles Krauthammer observes.

Meanwhile, the public's incredibly sour view of Nancy Pelosi has turned her into such a liability she is turning up in Republican television ads in much the same way Democrats featured Newt Gingrich in their messaging in the late '90s.

As a direct consequence of the pubic turning against the majority party, their legislative agenda has become mired in a morass of conflicting interests and a leadership vacuum. Democrat House members who would like to keep their jobs next year but represent conservative districts have suddenly become unreliable supporters of the liberal agenda. In the other chamber, their 60-vote majority hasn't produced much.

America remains a center-right country, yet the liberals in control of Washington assumed last year's election represented a fundamental leftward realignment of the electorate. If that were the case, the President would have had his health care bill signing ceremony by now.

Clearly the American people wanted a change in direction and perceived priorities, yet the current state of politics makes clear they did not suddenly embrace a left wing view of the role of the federal government just because they had differences with President Bush. Americans want a government that will get the economy on track, make government less of a burden, and defend the nation from those who would do us harm.

If the other team had focused on those priorities, they would be in a stronger position today.

The response we've seen from the majority party to their train coming completely off the tracks has been all too predictable: blame Republicans, and if you can find a way to blame President Bush too, so much the better.

It's a losing strategy, but the only one immediately available to them that does not involve adopting a more centrist policy agenda.

Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, who campaigned as a "New Democrat" distinct from the party's liberal wing and demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt to changing political circumstances. First, he championed his wife's plan for a complete federal takeover of health care in America, only to later declare the "era of big government is over."

While Clinton demonstrated flexibility, Obama and his team exhibit a more dogmatic approach that they believe they have the majority, they're not going to have it forever, and they're going to plow through to get their agenda passed now while they have the chance.

It's a blunt-force approach.

And it's failed. Concurrent with the President's plummeting approval ratings, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows 51% of Americans believe Congress is too liberal, while only 22% believe it's too conservative. Health care marks the end of this phase of the Obama presidency.

Next week the President will attempt to reshuffle the deck with a speech to a joint session of Congress. With broad majorities in both chambers it's something he shouldn't have to do, yet it's something he must do, for while the liberal leadership in Congress may support the health care plan, the American people do not. The President will attempt to change the terms of the debate to get his way despite the objections of so many Americans.

Going into 2010, Republican victory is not yet assured. We have to work for it. The President's numbers are unlikely to remain in the tank forever, and when they tick up a bit there will be a long line of liberals in the media to talk about the "comeback."

That comeback, however, is likely to be limited by what Bill Clinton possessed and Barack Obama lacks: an ability to put aside liberalism when it's a loser with the public. It was in 1994, and it is today.

Obama Policies a Step Backward in War on Terror

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:49:00 +0000

The Obama Administration on Monday opted to ramp up the involvement of law enforcement in the global war on terror. What may surprise most Americans is that this new law enforcement emphasis is not aimed at those who plot and commit acts of violence, but rather the intelligence agents charged with defeating them.

Attorney General Eric Holder has named John Durham as special prosecutor as the first step toward bringing chargest against current and former CIA personnel for the interrogation techniques used on detainees, mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Press reports indicate the decision to move forward toward prosecution was taken solely by AG Holder, and may even stand in contrast to the President's own stated position to move on from the national security "controversies" of the Bush Administration.

Yet, it is implausible that Holder would take such action without at least tacit approval from his boss, the President. Additionally, this action is in line with the stated desires of liberal Democrat members of Congress, including several from California, who would clearly like nothing more than a full scale witch hunt of Bush Administration officials involved with protecting America and her allies from terrorist attacks following 9/11.

Holder's moves are inconsistent with an effective national security policy, particularly regarding the global war on terror, and the related issues of securing victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For instance, in recent weeks we have witnessed a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq, including the bombing of the Foreign Ministry building and other key government facilities, coinciding with the withdrawal of US military forces from urban areas, and the decision by the al Maliki government to remove protective concrete barriers from many areas in Baghdad, increasing their vulnerability to attack.

Insurgents and terrorists have seen such moves as new opportunities to press on with their campaign of violence against the democratically elected government.

Likewise, what signal does it send to terrorists and insurgents to have the United States engaged in the high profile prosecution of those who were charged with fighting and defeating their violent brethren?

The answer: encouragement.

The decision to prepare for a witch hunt of Bush Administration officials (which liberals in Congress would pursue, and still may, regardless of the direction the Obama Justice Department takes) comes on the heels of last week's complete failure of the Obama Administration to block the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi from prison in Scotland.

Barack Obama is credited by Europeans and American liberals with having elevated America's stature and "soft power." Yet, despite "weeks and months" of effort by the Obama State Department, it could not even convince America's closest ally, Great Britain, to not release the man responsible for the murder of 189 Americans. Instead, the bomber was released, picked up in Muammar Gaddafi's private plane, and flown back to Libya to be greeted by a massive state sponsored rally at the airport.

So much for results from the Obama diplomatic team.

Barack Obama is certainly bringing "change" to the global war on terror: treating attacks on America as law enforcement violations, and an overreliance on diplomacy that has witnessed the return of a mass murderer to his home country and fresh threats to the democratically elected government in Iraq.

CA Unemployment Spike Highlights Lack of Competitiveness

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Nehring) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:07:00 +0000

While the national unemployment rate is leveling off at 9.7%, California's jobless rate just hit a post-World War II high of 11.9%, further underscoring the state's lack of competitiveness at precisely the time we need it most.

Globally, we're seeing Asia move ahead while France and Germany have emerged from recession ahead of the United States. Within our own country we're seeing a huge difference in how well, or poorly, states are coping with the economic downturn.

Texas has an unemployment rate well below the national average: 8% compared to the national rate of 9.7%. Meanwhile, California's high tax/high regulation model continues to force people out of work at a rate substantially higher than the rest of the nation: 2.2% higher than the national average, and 3.9 percentage points higher than Texas.

Liberals really enjoy playing the class warfare card when our team proposes to loosen up job killing regulations or ease the tax burden on job-generating small businesses. Yet, the liberal model of a big, intrusive and expensive government can in these times be seen for what it really does to working people: eliminating jobs and the opportunities that come with those jobs.

LA Times Story: California Unemployment Hits Post-World War II High