Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Life, Values, and California's GOP Senate Primary

I doubt these views are particularly representative, from the comments at my essay yesterday on Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts:
Personally, I don’t give a whit about social conservatism. As far as I’m concerned, there is not much of a difference between progressives and social conservatives in that both want to tell me how to live my life. I want the government to butt out of my pocketbook as well as my bedroom. One reason I’m turning away from the Republican Party is this insane insistence that somehow they know better than I do what is good for me. How does that make them think they’re any better than the Democrats?

If the Republicans make the mistake of playing up abortion or other social issues in this election, they will lose. For now, I’m leaning towards voting for Campbell.
This person sounds more like a concern troll than anything, although there were a number of others at the thread taking issue as well. Of course, folks had more emotion than facts. And despite insinuations to contrary, I never said a word about a Barbara Boxer/Chuck DeVore matchup in the general. Folks seeem to think that California's a wrap for the Dems. But don't believe it. Republicans have long won statewide, and in 1992 Bruce Herschensohn narrowly lost to Boxer -- and that's after a scurrilous Democratic smear campaign suppressed conservative turnout with just days left in the race. And as far as this bit about keeping government "out of the bedroom" ... well, for my money it's the left that's telling folks how to live. Just this week radical feminists launched a campaign against CBS, which plans to run a pro-life advertisement during the Super Bowl (focusing on college football star Tim Tebow,who was born after doctors advised his mother Pam to have an abortion).

In any case, I'm reminded of the most powerful advertisement during campaign 2008, Catholic Vote's "

Time will tell how things turn out in the California primary, but Tom Campbell -- who recently jumped into the Senate race -- has proudly proclaimed his "pro-choice" credentials. And Carly Fiorina -- already squishy on pro-life issues -- has emerged as the "California quota queen" of campaign 2010.

RELATED: From Cliff Kincaid, "
None Dare Call it Genocide."


Rusty Walker said...

RE: “keeping government "out of the bedroom" ... well, for my money it's the left that's telling folks how to live.”

Correct: the Left is the party relentlessly consistent with legislating control over the way they think we should live our lives: from the sheets to the streets.

A.E. said...

Well, that comment you quoted was mine. I'm hardly a concern troll. I am a relatively new Republican — I registered as Republican because the Republican presidential primaries in California was closed and I wanted to vote for Fred Thompson (that was 2008). I became active in politics after I watched the media attack Sarah Palin in the first few days after she was declared as the VP candidate. I remained active in the local Republican politics for the last year. That was when I labored under the misapprehension that all Republicans are conservatives and want smaller government and more freedom.

As I got to know the local Republicans a little better — from their knee-jerk anti-abortion positions (like discounting a fiscal conservative just because he is pro-choice, or supporting a squishy fiscal conservative just because he's against abortion) to their inconsistent position vis a vis marijuana legalization (it should be illegal because crimes are committed by people using marijuana, but that argument when made against guns don't count; and for the record, I'm an NRA member, have a CCW, and fully support the 2nd Amendment; and, for some, their anti-growth and anti-property rights positions) — I've come to the conclusion that I don't belong in the Republican party as it is in California.

And if you think that I'm not representative, that's fine by me. I merely live in Northern California where some people I know voted against McCain because Palin is pro-life. I can't get them to see that she's personally pro-life (as I am) but did not act on it politically when she had the chance as governor. It didn't matter to them. All they could see was the media hype that she is anti-abortion, and that was enough.

There is a reason Republicans lose in this state. One blogger I read the other day (something Friedman) said that the big tent is fiscal conservatism and small government. With that you gain the conservatives, the moderates and independents, and a bunch of fed-up Democrats. That's how you win states like Massachusetts.

Social issues might win you the primaries, but it will not win you the general election.

P.S. As for Chuck DeVore, like I said, I've met him personally. My husband and I really wanted to support him. The fact that we left that meeting absolutely turned off of him should say something. Or maybe he should use it as a chance to hone his message and his messaging. He's been campaigning for more than a year, and he's still polling the lowest among the three GOP candidates. That should say something, too.