Please note that despite the feelings of some in this group, the CRA is a chartered organization of the Republican Party. Kashkari is our nominee. If you want to revel in tearing him down - take it to another group. By charter and Celeste Greig knows this as a former CRA President - we are bound to support the nominees of the GOP. Thank you all for understanding.
Arthur Christopher Schaper - I pulled your post, thanks for your understanding.
I have no problem with being pulled.
Sometimes, silence speaks louder than words.
When I write about being silenced, I never meant to imply that any Republican out there was preventing me from speaking my mind.
The absence of discussion on an issue does not put the issue away.
Being silenced speaks even louder.
The comments I wrote above set off quite a stir from the Administrator of the forum, Aaron F. Park.
When he explained to me his frustration, I was able to explain mine.
He reworded a comment, removing an expletive, and then wrote:
Your comment "being silenced" is misleading.
An organization operates by rules, and they have to be followed.
Fine. I understand why he was upset. He felt that I had tarred him as someone opposing free speech.
I know that is not the case. We explained our disagreements, the moved on.
This kind of unity is needed now more than ever.
Also, the capacity to get angry but to step forward and say "Why are you angry?" rather than get huffed, offended, and walk away: we need more of this.
I was not silenced because of my opinions. My post was removed because the comments mitigate against the fact that the CRA is bound to support the Republican nominee.
Now, I do bring up a bigger issue: to what extent do the procedures and expectations of the group push against the values that the group wishes to represent? This division is getting wider, in my opinion, not just in California, but also in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats who have served in Washington for years have become attached to the label, but have lost sight of the values they were supposed to fight for.
This disjunction has created the dysfunction between the individual and the states v. the federal government. This disunity is becoming toxic.
I still stand by my decision not to vote for Neel Kashkari. My loyalty to party is not as important as my beliefs.
Even William F. Buckley had argued: "Support the Conservative who is the most electable."
Sadly, with the distortions of Prop 14 removing the option of write-in candidates, there was no conservative who was electable.
Republicans running as Democrats, and crashing through a primary with millions of dollars of outside money, are not going to unite the base while bringing independents and disaffected liberals.
I spoke with one Democrat in South Torrance one month ago, and he was ready to vote for Republican candidates because they would be the law-and-order types to end the border crisis and enforce the immigration laws.
And yet, Neel Kashkari supports Drivers Licenses for Illegal Immigrants. He also supports same-sex marriage, abortion, climate change as a viable policy (Cap and Trade), gun control, Common Core, Big Government Bank Bailouts, etc.
'He is not even a Republican!" the Democrat told me. How sad yet telling -- the Democrat understood the Republican Party platform than the gubernatorial nominee.
Ronald Reagan was right. Voters deserve bold colors, not light pastels. More than looking like Democratic candidate, light pastel candidates simply do not stand out. How can any candidate hope to gain the attention and the traction of voters if no one is paying attention to them?
Arthur Christopher Schaper - I pulled your post, thanks for your understanding.
I have no problem with being pulled.
Sometimes, silence speaks louder than words.
When I write about being silenced, I never meant to imply that any Republican out there was preventing me from speaking my mind.
The absence of discussion on an issue does not put the issue away.
Being silenced speaks even louder.
The comments I wrote above set off quite a stir from the Administrator of the forum, Aaron F. Park.
When he explained to me his frustration, I was able to explain mine.
He reworded a comment, removing an expletive, and then wrote:
Your comment "being silenced" is misleading.
An organization operates by rules, and they have to be followed.
Fine. I understand why he was upset. He felt that I had tarred him as someone opposing free speech.
I know that is not the case. We explained our disagreements, the moved on.
This kind of unity is needed now more than ever.
Also, the capacity to get angry but to step forward and say "Why are you angry?" rather than get huffed, offended, and walk away: we need more of this.
I was not silenced because of my opinions. My post was removed because the comments mitigate against the fact that the CRA is bound to support the Republican nominee.
Now, I do bring up a bigger issue: to what extent do the procedures and expectations of the group push against the values that the group wishes to represent? This division is getting wider, in my opinion, not just in California, but also in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats who have served in Washington for years have become attached to the label, but have lost sight of the values they were supposed to fight for.
This disjunction has created the dysfunction between the individual and the states v. the federal government. This disunity is becoming toxic.
I still stand by my decision not to vote for Neel Kashkari. My loyalty to party is not as important as my beliefs.
Even William F. Buckley had argued: "Support the Conservative who is the most electable."
Sadly, with the distortions of Prop 14 removing the option of write-in candidates, there was no conservative who was electable.
Republicans running as Democrats, and crashing through a primary with millions of dollars of outside money, are not going to unite the base while bringing independents and disaffected liberals.
I spoke with one Democrat in South Torrance one month ago, and he was ready to vote for Republican candidates because they would be the law-and-order types to end the border crisis and enforce the immigration laws.
And yet, Neel Kashkari supports Drivers Licenses for Illegal Immigrants. He also supports same-sex marriage, abortion, climate change as a viable policy (Cap and Trade), gun control, Common Core, Big Government Bank Bailouts, etc.
'He is not even a Republican!" the Democrat told me. How sad yet telling -- the Democrat understood the Republican Party platform than the gubernatorial nominee.
Ronald Reagan was right. Voters deserve bold colors, not light pastels. More than looking like Democratic candidate, light pastel candidates simply do not stand out. How can any candidate hope to gain the attention and the traction of voters if no one is paying attention to them?
No comments:
Post a Comment