Full disclosure, I am a paid staff member of the Goehring for Congress campaign. This article is solely meant to reflect my personal views as a political observer. I apologize for any misunderstanding arising from the lack of a disclosure on initial publication. David Creager (dcreager123@yahoo.com).
Anyone who paid attention to high school level American History learned about carpetbaggers, northerners who went to the south to run for office after the civil war. It’s an old tactic for cheap political victory and personal gain, but does it still mean that? In my home congressional district there are two Republicans carpetbagging in order to run against a vulnerable incumbent. Thus the question arises, are they running because they are a good candidate, because they represent their potential constituents, or are they running for personal enrichment and a political job?
These two candidates, Larry Pegram and Tony Amador are both from outside of the 11th district as recently as within the last month or two. Furthermore, they are way out. The district is comprised of the east bay area and the San Joaquin valley, yet Larry Pegram lives in San Jose, and Tony Amador recently moved from Sacramento. Neither of which have any tie in any sense to the 11th Congressional district. They don’t like to talk about this fact, yet the fact remains they don’t even know our district. Pegram was even quoted recently as claiming McNerney rode the Obama wave into office, even though he was elected two years before Obama even ran for president. Obviously he is out of touch with even the most basic history of the district. None of the candidates have a background in transportation, a key issue in the east bay, and only one Republican, Brad Goehring, has a history in Ag and Water issues, the key issues in the valley. Just recently in that much talked about special election in NY-23 where the conservative party candidate took on a Democrat head to head after Scazzofava the liberal Republican dropped out the conservative lost. Not because he didn’t represent the district, the district is a strongly conservative district, but because Congressional elections are local elections, and the Conservative candidate was not a resident of the district.
So what causes a candidate like Larry Pegram or Tony Amador to run for a district in which they have no history, no name ID, no knowledge of key local issues, and no ability to raise money?
Here’s what I want to know, and I would love your feedback on this issue, does it bother you to see candidates relocate simply for a job? Should constituents demand their candidates for office be local to the position they are running for? And, should state law be amended to bar candidates from running who do not have an established residence in a district, at least at the time they file for office, and possibly for 3-6 months in advance?
Full disclosure, I am a paid staff member of the Goehring for Congress campaign. This article is solely meant to reflect my personal views as a political observer. I apologize for any misunderstanding arising from the lack of a disclosure on initial publication. David Creager (dcreager123@yahoo.com).
Historically reasonable Democrats and Republicans have pretty much agreed on one thing, a strong national defense and a well funded military is necessary to the freedoms we hold dear in America. Yet, one congressional candidate, a republican no less, from my home district, CD-11 in California, apparently disagrees. The candidate’s name is Robert Beadles, and he calls himself a conservative, yet I’m not sure which side he really is on.
Two things clued me in. First was a radio interview that Beadles bragged about through his campaign. He was on with a host named Alex Jones. This is a guy who was the executive producer of the film “Loose Change” a “documentary” about how the 9/11 massacre by Muslim terrorists was really an inside job perpetrated by war mongering Republicans, one-world-government Democrats, and Zionist Jews with a thirst for innocent Muslim blood. Yet when Beadles began his interview he gushed all over Jones and credited Jones with shaping his politics. It was a foolish interview at best, and at worst a declaration of shared beliefs. This is just the kind of fringe radical we don’t need running for office on the Republican ticket, let the Peace and Freedom party take it on.
The second clue was a front and center poll on his website here which asks the question, how much does it cost to send a soldier to Afghanistan. His answer, 1 million dollars. A shocking example of how ineffective government is completing any job? Yes. An appropriate focus for this election cycle? Absolutely not. It tells you something about a candidate when in the era of big government socialism, the takeover of the healthcare industry, cap and trade, unions running roughshod over our constitution, free speech and fox news being attacked boldly by the least honorable white house in recent history, and a plummeting dollar value a candidate is really worried about how much it costs to complete a military mission. This man is not a conservative, he’s hardly a Republican in my personal opinion.
At the same time we work to eliminate the left wing republican checkered pants club from our party in exchange for patriotic conservative leaders, we must also eliminate the crazy radicals who the national media loves to latch on to in order to paint us all as out of touch and radical. We lost the white house, we lost the senate, and we lost the house, not only because our party lost touch with its conservative roots but also because leaders arise within the party that were not conservatives. The national media then paints these non conservatives as conservatives because they are Republicans in name. Our brand is then damaged, how much worse if we let these fringe types take advantage of the bullhorn that is the Republican party.
This email went out to constituents in the following congressional districts, and by doing so revealed what the NRCC is identifying as the weakest members of congress: Chet Edwards (TX-17), Martin Heinrich (NM-01), Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Ed Perlmutter (CO-07), John Salazar (CO-03), Kurt Schrader (OR-05), Dina Titus (NV-03), David Wu (OR-01)
Friends,
Democrats are worried this morning and rightfully so! Last night, election results showed significant wins for Republicans and an overwhelming shift away from the Democrats’ big-government, job-killing, tax-and-spend policies and toward the Republicans’ agenda of fiscal responsibility, smaller government and job creation. You can smell the fear in the air, as they realize that their Democrat incumbents are headed back home permanently next November.
Please consider the following comment from the NRCC as you cover Jerry McNerney’s extremely slim chances of survivability:
“Jerry McNerney is shaking in his boots today as he woke up to a rude awakening that the detrimental, job-killing policies he is pushing through Congress could cost him his job next year. Does Jerry McNerney now regret supporting Nancy Pelosi’s big-government, tax-and-spend agenda nearly 90 percent of the time or will he continue to march in lock-step with Pelosi at the cost of hurting California’s middle-class families?” – Joanna Burgos, NRCC Spokeswoman
GOP Campaigner
