Brulte in Torrance (Hopes, Dreams, and Yelling)

California Republican Party Chairman Jim Brulte paid a visit to Torrance, California last week (Thursday, February 6, Ronald Reagan's birthday)
All three hundred five pounds of him, Brulte is a striking figure.

"This is Jim Brulte. Leave your name and number.
I'll try to get back to you."

He outlined some basic reasons why the CA GOP has suffered in the last few election cycles.

They lost sight of the basics.

Party leaders were not returning phone calls or answering emails. The party apparatus had a $1 million plus payable debt, and some of the bills were two years due. Not a good testimony for a party which trumpets fiscal responsibility as an important characteristic for good government.

California was languishing for leadership, and Brulte stepped in, prodded by state and Congressional representatives who knew that he had what it would take to help the struggling California Republican Party. But with his fundraising acumen, Brulte wiped out the debt with money to spare.

I had called him earlier last year, as the Torrance-Lomita Republican Assembly had invited him speak, but because of illness and exhaustion, he was unable to attend.

I emailed him with some of my questions, as there were some pressing concerns that I had about the communication problems in the California GOP.

Brulte even emailed me his phone number!

Imagine that -- a state Party Chairman willing to contact one person.

Talk about class! He was taking the conversation/communication problem and dealing with it.

He finally got back to me. I shared with him my concerns about the communication gaps in the state party, and he then explained the situation facing the Republican Party in California. He outlined to me why the state party helped out Andy Vidak, where the prior electoral results demonstrated significant gains for Republican candidates, whether for statewide or federal offices.

Relying on a political canvassing computer program, Meridian Pacific Inc. Brulte showed me how the state party assessed which seats were winnable, and which seats were not worth focusing on.

"I don't want to spend money helping a candidate go from 44% to 48% or from 64% to 68%, when I can help a candidate go from 48% to 52%"

Agreed. Get people to win elections.

He then explained that 1ith eighty assembly races, twenty state senate races, and fifty-three Congressional districts, the state party had to be very picky about where to invest their limited funds.

I told him about the state assembly race in the Inland Empire, where Republican turned Independent Paul Leon of California was running strong against the Democratic Party. The liberal opponent outspent Leon ten-to-one, and managed to win by only a few hundred votes.

Yeah, I took union $$$
Got a Problem with that?

Then there was the 45th Assembly race in the West Valley region of Los Angeles, where Matt Dababneh eked out a win, by only a few hundred votes. Despite the disappointing outcomes, Republicans, fiscal conservatives, and limited government advocates should be glad that Democrats are having a difficult time turning out their base, and that Democrats are willing to support Republicans, too.

I was concerned, though, that the state party was not contributing campaign funding to those races. Brulte explained how the state party funding works

"We add the frosting to the cake, but it's up to the local leaders and their party apparatus to bake the cake."

When I spoke with one local candidate, she was frustrated. "It's kind of like a chicken and egg problem. People here won't donate money unless they see the state party donate." Makes sense, but I understand where the state party chairman is coming from.

So, I was not completely surprised by some of Brulte's insights, but they were welcome Thursday night.

He also shared what I had believed, as did many conservatives about the 2012 election.

Romney lost in California by twenty three percent, even though he received more votes than McCain did in 2008. Because he did so poorly, you can believe that he dragged down the ticket for all the other races in California. Of course!

Brulte glibly compared this political drag to tying his three hundred pound mass to the most skilled and powerful swimmer alive. No matter how well-trained the swimmer, the dead weight is going to bring him down.

And that's exactly what happened on election day, 2012. Romney sucked, and California, as one of the last states to close their polls, very likely discouraged voters from turning out.

I would further add that the Democratic Party was ready for the necessary transitions which would follow from the two major electoral reforms: open primaries and citizen redistricting. The California Republican Party apparatus was not very strong, and did not adapt as quickly or as strongly as the Democratic machines. Still, in at least three Congressional contests, incumbent or insurgent Democrats pummeled each other (Berman-Sherman, Hahn-Richardson, Swalwell-Stark).

If the Republican Party apparatus can streamline, organize, and communicate effectively, as demonstrated for the Vidak (R-Hanford) race in early to July 2013, then Democrats should find themselves on the defense greatly, and Republicans may find that they get back some seats which they had lost in 2012.

Still, Romney's loss was a further drag on the voter turnout in California.
Frustrating, indeed.

Further in regard to the Obama reelection, Brulte also sounded off on the incumbency effect, which Claremont-McKenna professor had offered, that an incumbent president has won reelection in the last one hundred years, unless the candidate faced a primary challenge and a third party drawing away votes (1980, 1992). So, let's not feel too bad about that President Obama won a second term.

Now, 2014 is a critical year, and Brulte outlined three goals:

1. Help Republicans keep their legislative majority in the House of Representatives. There will be fifty competitive Houses, and maybe ten of them will be in California. Because of the two reforms, incumbents will still have a fight in their future, since primary challenges as well as voter discontent with the Obama Administration may wipe out Democratic legislators

2. End the Democratic Supermajority in Sacramento. This chokehold on state power must go. With this concern in mind, Brulte is calculating where best to invest state party funds. With this mind, I can understand why the CA GOP did not send any money to the West Valley race. The state party needs to think long-term with its money. Then again, special election victories give potential donors more incentive to donate. Once again, the chicken and the egg dilemma asserts itself.

3. Improve statewide registration and outreach. Finally, someone is listening. With only 29% of the electorate registered as Republicans, the party needs to improve outreach, engagement, and registration.

Then Brulte took questions from the audience.

One question touched on the issue of voter fraud, which Brulte answered by talking about how he dealt with the issue in the past. Other questions touched on what he and the state party were going to do about the Waxman seat, which has been opened since the LA Congressman announced his retirement late last month. Brulte reminded everyone that the contest had  just opened up last week, and there was still time for a Republican to file for the race.

I asked Brulte about the money he took from public sector unions, including the SEIU and the California Teachers Association. Honestly, he got very upset, even defensive. He probably I shared my concern about the morality of taking money from an association which forces people to join and pay dues, yet gives them not say in how the money is spent.

Getting louder, Brulte recalled one voter getting in his face about taking the money, then shared the same argument published in Union Watch and other California conservative sources. Republicans make up 40% of union membership. Three times voters have voted to end mandatory dues, as well as ending the use of the money for political campaigns, and those efforts have failed. He then added that state Republican legislators have signed a resolution to end the high speed bullet train boondoggle.

Yet those specific unions did not contribute money to Brulte or the state party. Moreover, the chairman lamented that the California Teachers did not give more money. What if they had? Would the Republican Party in California still stand for school choice, for the end to arbitrary teacher tenure at that point, too? Political leaders and unions make strange bedfellows, to say the least.

Because my question sparked such upset, I know that I touched a nerve, and righty so. He did not respond to the moral issue, claiming that there was none. Yet his protestations did not justify taking that money. Even if GOP  union donations are a bare minimum compared to what the Democrats receive, why should any political party leadership take any money from these unions in the first place?

I applaud Brulte's efforts to unite the party, establish the state party structure to assist Republicans in future state and federal races, and I agree with his assessments regarding the state party's prior failures, but there is still no reason, or excuse, for Brulte, or any political party, to be taking money from public sector unions, no matter what the amount.

For now, I can agree to disagree, and hope that such contributions will be eliminated in the future. Or, if he as chairman takes a strong stance against union-special interest dominance in Sacramento, along with the candidates and legislative candidates throughout the state in 2014.