Competing visions to get our county out of a rut

I appreciate local GOP leader Rich Ulery’s response on the Tom McClintock blog post. He stated his view without going down the “FUE” or “peeline” or other name calling route, something many of his like-minded political colleagues still don’t get. One day, I’m sure I will blurt out FY (but I’m holding back).

Having said that, my concern about Tom is what I’ve expressed all along: Is the “my way or the highway” approach constructive for our small rural community? Does it unite us or divide us?

•Tom says: “I remember struggling in the political vineyards for decades – knocking on countless doors for candidates, pounding in yard signs, stuffing envelopes hoping against all reason that someday, maybe in my lifetime, we would have a Republican President AND a Republican Congress – and then we could save our country.”

I can understand the frustration — from his perspective. But what about the reality? In our county, we are nearly evenly split between registered Republicans and registered Democrats with a large number of Independents. So how is that kind of rhetoric going to win people over? As Rich points out, Tom isn’t even publicly endorsing Meg Whitman, the GOP candidate for governor. He supported Steve Poizner instead, though he’s no longer in the race.

•The other vision: Why not reach out to the people that disagree with you rather than “reject” them (as Tom has in skipping out on some candidate forums here)? Tom thinks: “We need to put our time, energy and resources into those candidates who actually share our principles and to reject those – regardless of party – who have proclaimed, through word or deed – their hostility to those principles.”

But is that what we elected him for?

Tom sounds more like a CEO than an elected official. But he can’t “fire” us if we disagree with him. To the contrary, we can fire him.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the debate over Prop. 23. Tom has his view and a lot of other people, including economic development leaders in our region, have theirs. (And I think our county supervisors are caught in a political quagmire of sorts — or rather they think they are).

So why not lead by example and learn from each other? It seems kind of simple in theory but has proven absolutely impossible in practice.

McClintock: “We’re at the threshold”

Editor’s note: Here’s the speech that our Congressman Tom McClintock gave to Western Conservative Political Action Conference in Newport Beach on October 15. While Tom has been a “no show” at some candidate forums in his own district, he made it a priority to come to this event:

A key quote: “We need to put our time, energy and resources into those candidates who actually share our principles and to reject those – regardless of party – who have proclaimed, through word or deed – their hostility to those principles.”

Here you go:

What a difference two years makes!

During the debacle two years ago, the generic Republican Congressional candidate trailed the Democrat by 6 points among likely voters in the Gallup poll. Today, Gallup reports that the generic Republican leads the Democrat by 17 points among likely voters.

The National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee is now expanding its reach, just as Democrats are pulling out of key elections in the bellwether states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

How big could the Republican sweep actually be?

Six months ago, Real Clear Politics published an article of Sean Trende that didn’t get much attention. It should have. While Martha Coakley was vacationing after her triumphant primary, Trende was the political analyst who stood alone in 2009 in predicting that the Massachusetts Senate election could end with a Republican victory.

This is what he wrote back in April: He said:

“Let me say upfront that I tend to agree with analysts who argue that if we move into a V shaped recovery and President Obama’s job approval improves, Democratic losses could be limited to twenty or twenty-five seats.

“That said, I think those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994- style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility – not merely a far-fetched scenario – that Democratic losses could climb into the 80- or 90 seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the pursuing months, I wouldn’t be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.”

He then went on to chart what he calls the “wave” midterm elections since the date was made uniform after the Civil War. He charted three conditions: a poor economy, a previous wave election for the party in power (that is, the pendulum has gone about as far as it will) and a controversial agenda by the party in power. He then noted that when two of these three factors are present, the party that controls the presidency loses 50 seats. There were three midterm elections since the Civil War when all three factors were present. In 1874, the party in power lost 96 seats; in 1894, it lost 125 seats; in 1938, it lost 79 seats. All three of those determinative factors are lined up once again.

This year’s mid-term election may not be unprecedented – but it could well be something far different than anything we have experienced in our lifetimes.

In fact, when Frank Luntz came to lecture House Republicans about “The Language of Health Care” a full year ago, he began by saying, “Before I talk about the subject today, I need to tell you guys something. I have spent the last three months looking at polling data from Congressional districts across the country. You guys are going to be in the majority next year. This time, for God’s sake don’t screw it up again.”

And that really is the fine point of it all.

One of the most anguished commentaries on the last 20 years of our political experience came from Peggy Noonan in a column she wrote over a year ago. She reflected on the two Bush administrations and wrote of a “squandering of legacy.”

Legacy: a valuable gift that someone else has earned and given to us.

George H.W. Bush received a precious legacy through no merit of his own – fate literally handed him Ronald Reagan’s Third Presidential Term. He never appreciated it, never valued it, never understood it, and utterly squandered it.

The son was handed an even more precious legacy – something Ronald Reagan never had: a Republican Congress.

I remember struggling in the political vineyards for decades – knocking on countless doors for candidates, pounding in yard signs, stuffing envelopes hoping against all reason that someday, maybe in my lifetime, we would have a Republican President AND a Republican Congress – and then we could save our country.

And for six years, we had exactly that. And Bush and Congressional Republicans utterly and completely squandered it.

In fact, they did worse. They increased spending at twice the rate of Bill Clinton. They turned four years of budget surpluses into eight years of budget deficits. They presided over unprecedented government intervention in the housing market that created a catastrophic bubble. They left America’s borders wide open and yawned as millions of foreign nationals illegally crossed our borders.

Is it any wonder that the American people threw Republicans out of office? The American people didn’t abandon Republican principles. They looked at Republicans and decided that Republicans had abandoned Republican principles.

They looked at John McCain and saw – quite accurately– George W. Bush’s third term.

The good news, if you can call it that, is that the American people are now discovering that they got something a lot worse than George W. Bush’s third term – they got Jimmy Carter’s second term.

Now we are about to be given a precious legacy by the American people, perhaps even more valuable than the others. We’re about to be given a second chance. This time, we’ve got to be worthy of that legacy.

A long-time House Republican staff member confided to me recently, “Thank God McCain lost.”

“What do you mean by that?” I said.

“Don’t you see? If McCain had been elected, Cap and Trade would have gone through as a Republican initiative; Amnesty would have gone through as a Republican initiative; the bailouts and stimulus bills would have been Republican initiatives.

“He would have pushed them, the Democrats would have approved them, and Republicans would have been blamed for them.”

If you doubt that for a moment, look at the unfolding campaign in California.

While political analysts predict historic Republican gains across the country, you don’t hear any discussion of Republicans taking a majority of the California legislature in the very same election that has Barney Frank in trouble in Massachusetts.

There’s a reason for that. In California, the Democrats are attacking Republicans for imposing the biggest state tax increase in American history. The Democrats are attacking Republicans for exempting the police unions from pension reform.

The Republicans are advertising their opposition to Arizona’s immigration law. The Republicans are opposing Prop 23 to stop the most draconian global warming restrictions in the world.

Yesterday, the Riverside Press Enterprise carried an article headlined, “Few Inland Republicans Support Pension (Reform) Bill.” The Senate Republican Leader opposed pension reform on the Senate floor with these words:

“What I’d really like to see is…the administration to go and deal with the CCPOA (the prison guards union) and actually bring a (contract) to the floor…Because this will end up being used, I feel, unfairly, against them as a bargaining tool.”

People often say to me, “You must feel awfully lonely in Washington.” My response is, “I was awfully lonely in Sacramento. In Washington, I have lots of company.”

During almost all of the 22 years I served in the California legislature, I fought Republican leaders who thought their job was to help the Democrats enact their agenda.

I used to lecture them that, “Sorry, we don’t get to govern. That’s what the election was all about. Only the majority gets to govern. But we have an equally important task. Our job is to develop a better vision of governance, take that vision to the people and earn their charter to govern.” For 22 years, with only a couple of exceptions, that lecture fell on deaf ears.

You can imagine my joy in sitting down at my first House Republican Conference meeting and hearing that very same lecture delivered by the Republican leaders to the rank-and-file.

It was the decision by the House Leadership to rediscover and revive our Republican principles of individual freedom and limited government, that has galvanized House Republicans, united them as a determined voice of opposition to the left, and rallied the American people.

There’s a reason there was unanimous Republican opposition to so-called stimulus spending and near-unanimous opposition to Obamacare and Cap-and-Trade. Republicans rediscovered why they were Republicans, and Republican leaders rediscovered Reagan’s advice to paint our positions in bold colors and not hide them in pale pastels.

And across this entire country (at least until you reach the Left Coast of California) you can see the fruit of that return to Republican principles – the American people have awakened and are willing to place their trust – however cautiously – in our candidates once again.

And God help us if we betray that trust once again.

People ask, why should we trust Republicans after what they did during the Bush years? I can at least offer this observation: most of the Republicans-in-name-only who produced that debacle were turned out of office in 2006 and 2008 and 2010 – and were replaced by Republicans fiercely determined to restore Republican principles as the foundation of our public policy.

I believe that the debate in the next 18 days and in the next several elections will determine whether the United States of America will fade into history as just another failed socialist state, or whether this generation will rediscover its legacy and resume America’s historic rise as the beacon of freedom to all mankind.

The next 18 days – as important as they are – pale in comparison to the challenge of the next two years – to demonstrate Republican principles in action at a moment in history when they are so desperately needed.

That’s where Western Conservatives have our work cut out for us. We need to put our time, energy and resources into those candidates who actually share our principles and to reject those – regardless of party – who have proclaimed, through word or deed – their hostility to those principles.

The Democrats accuse us of being the party of “no.” When somebody is driving you off a cliff, “no” is a pretty handy word to have in your vocabulary.

As Churchill said, “Alexander the Great remarked that the people of Asia were slaves because they had not learned to pronounce the word “No.” Let that not be the epitaph of the English-speaking peoples or of Parliamentary democracy…There, in one single word, is the resolve which the forces of freedom and progress, of tolerance and good will, should take.”

But that is not the only word in our vocabulary — not by a long shot. During the last two years, House Republicans have laid out detailed plans to restore the finances of our government and the prosperity of our economy, to return freedom of choice and affordability to health care, to restore the integrity of our borders, and to return to our states their rightful powers and prerogatives.

I know that some conservatives have criticized the Republican Pledge to America for being too long on principles and two short on specific policies.

I would remind them that great parties are built on great principles, and they are judged by their devotion to those principles.

It is principles that drive policies, and the Pledge to America clearly restores and revives those uniquely American principles of individual freedom and limited government that once produced the most prosperous and successful Republic in the history of the world.

Ronald Reagan was right – the history of the last four centuries tells us plainly that Providence had a purpose in placing this continent where it is, to receive what Lincoln called “the last best hope” of mankind – the American Republic.

I believe, starting in 18 days, it is those principles set forth for mankind in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed for this generation in the Pledge to America that will guide our nation into its next great era of expansion, prosperity and influence.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a decade late, but I believe America has finally arrived at the threshold of her greatest Century.

Time for county to cut ERC funding?

The head of the county Economic Resource Council has resigned, fueling more speculation that the group’s days are numbered.

It comes as the county faces deep cutbacks because of declining property tax receipts to provide basic services.

I enjoyed a short tenure on the ERC board, at least compared to some long-timers.

But the group struggled to bring about the needed change.

One reason: It is comprised largely of “electeds” or businesses who support the “old” economy here (construction, real estate, natural resources, print newspapers and the like).

Except for some leaders, there was resistance to diversifying our economy with “green” jobs, emerging industries (I wrote about a computer “apps” incubator, for example) or a more creative approach.

Much of it was “wishful thinking” for a return to the past. You could also see some rigid political ideologies getting in the way of more “out of the box” thinking.

I also found it ironic that many of these same people were “free marketers,” yet the ERC was being heavily subsidized by the county and cities. It’s funny how that works.

It is time that businesses step up to this economic development task, including being more open minded about seeking out new ideas. Some of the ED functions could be handled by the cities and county too.

Brown gets lots more donations here than Whitman

The number of donors to Jerry Brown’s campaign is far outnumbering the donors to Meg Whitman’s campaign in our western county, according to a new searchable database on CalWatch.

It comes as Meg’s self-funding for the campaign has passed $140 million.

Only one donation was reported for Meg’s campaign from Grass Valley ($100), compared to 24 for Jerry, it showed.

And none contributed to Meg’s campaign from Nevada City, compared to 19 donations for Jerry (including $10,000 from one of them). There is a lag time in reporting some of the smaller contributions.

The database is here.

Some people on the far right here call Meg “Arnold in a dress.” Their candidate was Steve Poizner, who lost handily to Meg in the June primary.

You’d still think there’d be more donors to Meg, however, since we have more registered Republicans than Democrats. Or is it because our GOP rank here is not moderate enough to support Meg?

As for The Union’s right-leaning editorial bias, I’ve always argued it is leaving money on the table. Think if the $10,000 that went to Brown – or some of it – was redirected to subscriptions, advertising or “newspapers in education” (which counts for print subscribership). Don’t count on it.

Travel’n Tom McClintock

This campaign ad is from 2008, when Tom McClintock narrowly defeated Charlie Brown to become our Congressman. In our county, Brown won. It addresses the same criticism that is being raised about Tom now as he seeks a second term. It’s fun, too.

Link to draft EIR for Loma Rica and next meeting on Oct. 19 and 25

Here’s a notice from the City of Grass Valley, providing a link to the draft EIR for the Loma Rica housing project and the dates of upcoming meetings:

“The City has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Loma Rica Ranch Specific Plan. The proposed project is a Specific Plan for a mixed-use development on 452 acres. The applications include: 1) an Annexation of the land to the City of Grass Valley; 2) a General Plan Amendment; 3) a Prezoning; and 4) a Specific Plan. The plan clusters development into four neighborhoods.

The proposed plan includes development of 700 low, medium and high density primary residential dwelling units; 54,000 square feet of commercial, mixed-use, and retail uses; and 364,161 square feet of business and light industrial uses. Approximately 313.9 acres are proposed as open space, including improved parks, farm land and natural open space.

Copies of the Draft EIR are available for public review during regular business hours at the Nevada County Library, 980 Helling Way, Nevada City, the Grass Valley Library, 207 Mill Street, Grass Valley, and the Grass Valley City Hall at 125 E. Main Street in Grass Valley. The document can also be viewed on the City’s web site here.

Public Meetings: The following hearings and meetings are proposed for the DEIR:
1. Planning Commission Public Hearing – Tuesday, October 19, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Grass Valley City Council Chambers, 125 E. Main Street.
2. Public Workshop/Informational Open House – Monday, October 25, 2010, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the Hullender Room at Grass Valley City Hall
3. Planning Commission Public Meeting – following the public workshop on October 25.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 102 other followers