We are less than three weeks away from the California primary, and some of you may have already received your ballots by mail. It’s time to get serious about our future.
I’ve been saying since the 2008 General Election that this would be the most important election year in most of our lifetimes. And I don’t mean the election in November. It’s the primaries that matter, people. For those with a Tea Party mindset, we’ve been complaining for over a year that we need candidates who are grounded in Constitutional thinking. The only way that happens is through the primaries.
Let’s take the 11th District in California, for example. This is my home district and the one that I will be voting in on June 8th. There are four Republican candidates vying to unseat two-term incumbent Democrat Jerry McNerney. No one is going to confuse McNerney with a Constitutionalist. He votes in lock-step with Nancy Pelosi, and we know where she stands. So, what about these Republicans?
I’ve been following this race since last fall when candidates first started announcing their intentions to run. I’ve watched the four remaining candidates (two have since dropped out) at various forums and public events, and listened to them on the radio. I’ve studied their websites to get an idea of who these people are and what they believe in. And, on the surface, they all appear to be saying the right things. But if you dig a little deeper, there are some issues that I feel deserve to see the light of day.
Let’s start with David Harmer. Harmer entered the race in January, after all the other candidates had long declared. Harmer lives in San Ramon, but OUTSIDE the district. He won’t even be able to vote for himself. He’s an attorney (wanting to represent a largely agricultural district) who has run for Congress twice before unsuccessfully, once in Utah in 1996 and again last year in a special election in his own district (CD-10) where he lost to John Garamendi. He apparently supports homosexual marriage. He has received about 84% of his contributions from outside the district in which he is running. I believe he is the establishment candidate. Why else the late entry into the race, and all the money from around the country instead of within the district? In addition, his endorsement by the California Republican Assembly is dubious, at best. Having attended the last two San Joaquin CRA meetings, I was privy to the shenanigans that took place to ensure that Harmer would get the endorsement. I don’t think Harmer is the kind of candidate that true conservatives want. Now, if you’re voting Republican, and not conservative………..
Elizabeth Emken is an interesting story. She is a former employee of IBM, and for the last couple of years has been a lobbyist for Autism Speaks, an advocacy group. Her background would indicate the type of person that you might consider as a great Congresswoman, were it not for the lobbying activity. From her own website: ”Elizabeth joined Autism Speaks in March 2007 to manage the relationship between the organization and the federal government, state governments, and related agencies.” In my opinion, if part of her job there wasn’t dedicated to ELIMINATING the relationship between the organization and the federal government, then she’s missed the boat. As great a cause as Autism Speaks is, it has no business lobbying from the federal government, as that would be outside of their Constitutional mandate. Emken says on her website that she is for limited government and lower taxes, but her actions don’t quite bear that out.
Antonio “Tony” Amador is a retired U. S. Marshal with an extensive law enforcement background. He spent 13 years as an LAPD officer, and since has served at the request of governors and presidents in various law enforcement roles. He makes for an intriguing candidate. He seems to have the right answers to all the questions, but all of the candidates do. My question of Amador is like that of Emken and Harmer. You’re all insiders to a degree, having spent time in “the machine”. How do I know that you won’t be just another Washington elitist once you’re elected?
And lastly, there’s Brad Goehring. Goehring is a wine grape grower in the Lodi/Clements area, and has lived in the district for his entire life, save his college years. He knows what it means to be a victim of an out-of-control government. He was almost charged with “filling and destroying waters of the U. S.” by the Army Corps of Engineers….on his own property. He has since become an expert on the Clean Water Act. He calls himself a conservative before a Republican, so he doesn’t seem to have any deep party connections, like some of the others do. This is the one issue that I think sets him apart from the other candidates. He’s one of us, not one of them.
I’m supporting Brad Goehring and will be filling out my mail-in ballot soon. Take the time to learn about these candidates, and make an informed choice. The only way that we take back Washington is if we elect people like ourselves to represent us. People who understand the Constitution and it’s limitations, and then defend it with everything they have.
Originally posted at restoreconservatism,blogspot.com by Evan Stone. The opinions expressed in the above article are those of Evan Stone, and not necessarily those of Conservative New Media. Evan Stone is not paid by any political campaign or by Conservative New Media, and provides the above article as a guest contributor to Conservative New Media.
Note: We will make a very detailed post with background, links and citations, so please bookmark this article and check back soon.
In the meantime, here are our video responses to Lisa Vorderbrueggen’s Sunday, December 20, 2009 article. Her front-page piece named Conservative New Media and CNM founder John D. Villarreal:
Part 1
*
Part 2
*
Part 3
*
Part 4
*
Part 5
*
Part 6
*
Part 7
*
Part 8
*
Part 9
*
Part 10
*
Part 11 – Final
*
*
*
On Sunday, Dec 20, 2009, the Contra Costa Times (CCT) print edition ran a lengthy front-page-of-the-second-section story which we feel unfairly smeared Conservative New Media (CNM) and its founder, John D. Villarreal. That story was written by CCT political editor Lisa Vorderbrueggen.
CNM had anticipated how Ms Vorderbrueggen would portray us in her piece. We actually had scooped the CCT editor on what we figured was to be her originally-planned story with a series of videos we posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2009.
The video series discussed Robert Beadles‘ affinity for controversial talk radio host Alex Jones. Mr. Beadles, a Republican, is running as a candidate for the United States House of Representatives. He is one of several potential challengers to Democrat Congressman Jerry McNerney in the pending 2010 election for the 11th district of California.
That 5-part video series can be viewed here. If you are short on time, we recommend parts 4 & 5 for a synopsis of the series:
As we detail in this series of videos, we believe that our advanced derailing of the preferred narrative for her Dec 20 story irked Ms. Vorderbrueggen. Her apparent displeasure, we feel, was borne out in what she ended up writing about CNM in her piece.
Our new, 11-part video series critically examines Ms. Vorderbrueggen present article. It also discusses Ms. Vorderbrueggen’s background as a reporter, as well as some controversies and criticisms which have dogged her over the course of her political reporting career.
The following are links which we either allude to in the new video series or else ones which will provide further information on Ms. Vorderbrueggen and additional background on the present situation between her and CNM.
* The title for the print version of Lisa Vorderbrueggen’s Dec. 20, 2009 page A-19 (front page of the ‘East Bay & Bay Area’ section of the Contra Costa Times) article was “Anonymous Blog Sniper Comes Clean.” This is the article in which Ms. Vorderbrueggen mentions CNM and John D. Villarreal.
The online version of Ms. Vorderbrueggen’s piece is now available. The title has been changed to “Blog sniper turns out to be CD11 campaign consultant.” It can be viewed here: http://bit.ly/4zkowl
* Purportedly objective CCT political editor and reporter Lisa Vorderbrueggen is a “fan” of candidate Robert Beadles on Beadles’ Facebook page: http://bit.ly/69l9y9
* Lisa Vorderbrueggen called out for allegedly being biased towards Democrats, and specifically towards certain Democrats over others in the recent California CD-10 race to replace Congresswoman Ellen Taucher:
* Lisa Vorderbrueggen’s colleague was taken to task by, of all sources, MSNBC for giving money to the Democratic National Committee. MSNBC didn’t see anything wrong with the donation and, according to the quote, apparently there is no policy against such partisan donation-giving at Vorderbrueggen’s employer, the Contra Costa Times:
* It appears that even the CC Times’ readers perceive the publication as biased. On the paper’s own site, this comment thread of Times perusers upbraids the periodical for its stilted coverage:
In fact, at least one reader felt so strongly about what he or she believes are the Times’ partisan leanings that there is now an entire blog devoted to monitoring and answering the supposed liberal bias found in the Contra Costa Times. Of course, this is a group of anonymous blogger(s) that Lisa Vorderbrueggen can’t assail by name and who are trying to act as watchdog(s)/whistle-blower(s). This may account for some of her apparent dislike of anonymous bloggers:
* “Lisa Vorderbrueggen to address Coco Taxpayers luncheon, Nov 30″ (2007) http://bit.ly/4voE9A
Was Ms. Vorderbrueggen paid to address the Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association? If so, by whom? Was the event partisan? If Ms. Vorderbrueggen was paid for her appearance, how might this have affected her remarks?
* Why did none of the following, or similar, information appear in Vorderbrueggen’s article about Conservative New Media? These pieces show that the practice criticized by Lisa Vorderbrueggen — being surreptitiously paid or volunteering to provide a particular point of view on the internet, anonymously or otherwise — is widespread on the political left and, indeed, on the largest blog (Daily Kos, a far-left site) in the political space. In fact, Lisa never mentions anyone on the left engaging this practice, which gives the wholly false impression that this phenomenon is confined to the right. Ha ha, the left invented it! Truth be told, the left practically owns the internet and new media, which is why we founded CNM.
“Blogging for Dollars” — Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga paid by Howard Dean campaign in order to induce Zuniga to write and say favorable things about Howard Dean
The early returns from Sarah Palin’s reemergence onto the public stage are in, and Barack Obama and Democrats should be very concerned. Watch the video for more:
Any plans that Obama and other of her opponents had to halt the Palin Momentum have been shattered. Like her or not — and we at Conservative New Media love her — Sarah Palin is a political and cultural force of nature who simply cannot be ignored.
This morning, the Representative of the 3rd District of Kansas, Dennis Moore, announced that he will not seek re-election in 2010.
This self-proclaimed Blue Dog Democrat has voted for TARP both times, the various bank bailouts, the “stimulus,” as well as the health care “reform” bill. He would not answer his own constituents phone calls (everything went to voice mail), canceled all town hall meetings, or take an excessive amount of time writing back. In my case, I wrote him late July/early August regarding health care legislation. I didn’t get a response until the middle of October, whereas both Senators responded within a few weeks.
The Tea Party movement in our district reached a fever pitch this summer. Among of the gatherings I attended was the one at Johnson County Community College in Overland Park, Kansas on 15 April 2009. The thousands that showed up demonstrated their distrust of the reckless spending taking place in DC.
Our protests have finally reached a breaking point. The last straw was Mr Moore’s vote for the health care bill. When I attempted to call his Washington phone number, his box was full. So, we have forced his hand with his decision to not run for re-election.
Among the people now running for his seat is Nick Jordan of Shawnee, Kansas. He ran last year, but unfortunately lost by a considerable vote. He actually called me personally during his 2008 campaign (and not one of those infamous robo-calls). Having a Congressional candidate making calls himself speaks volumes.
Mr. Jordan is truly conservative in more ways than one. He is not one of those “RINO’s.” He stands for fiscal responsibility. He is for defending our borders. He believes in allowing the free market drive down health care costs; the private sector is more capable of handling itself more than the government.
I would definitely contribute to his 2010 campaign. He will have my vote come 2 November 2010. It is time for the 3rd District of Kansas to be properly represented once again, and I believe Nick Jordan to be that person.
There is an unsurprising trend taking place among the liberal elite as 2009 Election Day nears. Here is a recent headline to help demonstrate the phenomenon:
The commonality in all of these stories is that the Republican Party is imperiled, and is in danger of further “marginalizing” itself if it dares to return to its conservative roots.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And the, as Andrew Breitbart accurately deemed it, Democrat-Media Complex knows this better than anyone.
The most important concepts in analyzing this Republican Party criticism is to understand who is offering these assessments and to what end.
As noted above, one of those opining on the state of the GOP is Valerie Jarrett, Senior White House Advisor to Barack Obama. Today Joe Biden got into the act, asking for “moderate” Republicans to support liberal Bill Owens in the New York special election.
Most of the other critiques are coming from a heavily-left-of-center media and a few nominal conservatives such as David Brooks.
Why, then, would the left and its allies seek to “help” a Republican Party which they do not wish to see succeed?
Answer: They wouldn’t. And this supposed strategy advice and analysis by the left is to be ignored, except as it can be used to understand exactly what the left most fears.
The very public advice being offered to the GOP by the left is intended to help keep the Republican Party fragmented and to try to convince the American people that conservatism is “extreme” and undesirable. It is a transparent and predictable ploy.
A good and longstanding example of this kind of misdirection attempt is the exhortation by liberals for conservatives to have Sarah Palin be Barack Obama’s opponent in 2012. The refrain goes something like this: If Palin is the nominee, Obama will win in a landslide. So please pick her.
The goal of such pronouncements is to make the right believe that Palin isn’t viable, and that the left doesn’t fear her at all. This is, to any astute political observer, total nonsense. The left fears nobody more than Sarah Palin, but one has to be able to interpret how that fear is manifested. Among the Alinskyites and their media enablers, the fear is often currently expressed as mocking, condescension and dismissal.
What the left most fears at this time is the coming together of a strong, unified and no-nonsense (read: non-elitist or -apologizing-for-itself) conservative opposition to Barack Obama. That movement is well underway, as this summer’s Tea Party protests showed. However, we may be on the doorstep of the first major electoral victories based at least partially upon this coalition.
In Virginia, Bob McDonnell seems a near-lock to defeat Democratic Party challenger Creigh Deeds. In upstate New York, conservative Constitution Party candidate Doug Hoffman may win a Congressional seat in a district which voted for Obama and despite his GOP adversary, Dede Scozzafava, dropping out of the race and endorsing Obama-backed liberal Bill Owens. Finally, the solidly-blue state of New Jersey may vote out Democrat Governor Jon Corzine in favor of Republican Chris Christie.
It would appear conservatives and the GOP aren’t doing so poorly, then. And this is this is the point for those left of center. The last thing they want is for an invigorated right wing to find its footing and gain momentum heading into the 2010 midterm elections.
The first of the three articles I linked to above is meant to quell any possible good feelings conservatives may have after tomorrow’s elections. It is, to use the slang, a buzzkill piece. Don’t get too excited, GOP, it says. Even if you win big.
Stephanopoulos’ report is intended to play up the Republican Party infighting in the New York special election so as to take the emphasis off of the incredibly strong and unified support behind Doug Hoffman. The tactic here is to accentuate the negative.
Finally, Jarrett’s gambit is to try to dissuade people from voting for GOP candidates tomorrow lest they be part of that “extreme” fringe no one wants to be identified with. Why be a radical, she implies, when you could be such a good and decent — and accepted — person and vote Democrat.
As the reconstituted conservative moment continues to strengthen and build, you will see many more such “free advice” articles and TV spots from the right wing’s opponents. When you see them, just smile to yourself and listen to see what the left is most exercised about in their talking and writing. This will let you know what it is that Obama’s allies fear most.
For a genuine conservative and Republican Party resurgence, the right must get back to its roots. Rush Limbaugh, from his appearance on this past Sunday’s FOX News Sunday puts the matter succinctly (go to the 2:50 mark of the video):
THE FOLLOWING VIDEO IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE
It is the Reagan Coalition, not the blue blood/country club set who will lead the right wing back to prominence. The “Democrat Lite” strategy is a failing one and only plays into the hands of the right’s opponents. Those, that is, who are now so freely providing their unsolicited advice.
