Kind of funny the central committee chair brags about bringing the 2nd most corrupt House member from California into office.

Looks like two entirely different groups to me. Not much respect for someone involved in both unless the Central Committee makes strides to get back to Republican goals and away from biblical dogma of the right wing nuts.

Brian, can you arrange to have some representatives from the VCRCC to weigh in under their real names? Otherwise, it won't be much of a dialogue. Additionally, it would be good to get some representatives from the Democrats. Perhaps Laura Winchester can weigh in with her thoughts.

Also, you need to post our actual mission statement because what you said doesn't really make sense. "They are set to help moderate candidates to redistrict, create new primaries, and a whole host of other centrist ideas" Candidates can't redistrict themselves and we aren't going to be creating any new primaries.

Here's the actual mission statement for CAPC:

Mission Statement

California Association of Political Centrists (CAPC) is a non-partisan political association that supports candidates and public policies that encourage the development of free enterprise, limited government and individual liberty while protecting the public good. Its mission is to foster “across the aisle” cooperation and true representation of the voting majority viewpoint at the local and state level. CAPC is not a third party but an organization that supports the centrist viewpoints of Democrats, Republicans and Decline to States.

I think that somebody can most definitely be a loyal member of both groups. It will be up to a Central Committee member to explain why somebody can't be and I look foward to hearing from them. But they will have to use their real name to add legitamacy to the argument.

It's my understanding that the Republican Central Committee allows its members to be involved in outside organizations (PACs, unions, charity, churches, etc.) So unless the rules are changed, I don't beieve there is a conflict. If the rules are changed, then quite a few people are going to have to resign.

CAPC is a PAC that will be primarily involved with providing objective rankings on local candidates and participating in certain government reform such as redistricting and open primaries.

Katie, I e-mailed the chair of the VCRCC to invite him to comment on this entry.

Also, the front page was fixed. Sorry about that.

Thanks Brian,

I'll check the thread later on today and if some people from one of the Central Committee's posts anything, I'll be sure to respond. The mission statement of CAPC has been put up and the mission statement of the Ventura County Republican party is on their website - www.vcrcc.com.

I look forward to responding to actual Central Committee members' comments and, of course, always enjoy reading the speculations of your loyal followers.

I'll check in later this afternoon. I think Leslie is tied up with business meetings today but I'm sure she will check in as well.

The people posting under fake names aren't random followers I bet. I am sure they are also local activists or members of different groups.

Brian has emailed and asked me to comment on this topic. While I'll take no position on the actions of any individual, I'll try and give you all the facts and then let each person come to their own conclusions.

There are four political parties codified by State law. They are Democrat, Republican, American Independent and Peace and Freedom. Each of these parties are governed by the election code and their individual bylaws and rules. In the Republican party, when, after an election, we take office we take an oath of office. I assume the other parties also use an oath of some kind. One principle of every party is to uphold the mission. While we all tend to use flowery language I fairly sure that no one will argue with me that the basic mission of each political party is to elect its members. You will never see the Republican party endorse a Democrat and you will never see the Democrats endorse a Republican. Also when you stand for election you swear to uphold the laws of the State.

In fact State Election code allows for removal for party members who cross party lines.

I've included two excerpts from the code:

For Democrats,
7165. This committee may remove any member appointed or elected to this committee, who during his or her term of membership affiliates with or registers as a member of another party, publicly advocates that the voters should not vote for the nominee of the party for any office, or publicly gives support to or avows a preference for a
candidate of another party or candidate who is opposed to a candidate nominated by this party.

For Republicans,
7413. A committee may remove any member, other than an ex officio member, who during his or her term of membership affiliates with, or registers as a member of another party, who publicly advocates that the voters should not vote for the nominee of this party for any office, or who gives support or avows a preference for a candidate of
another party or candidate who is opposed to a candidate nominated by this party.

As you can see the language is almost identical, and most parties have similar language in their bylaws and rules.

Those are the facts.

As to the question posed by this thread, "Can a person be a loyal member of both groups?"

You'll all have to judge for yourselves.

Are you going to remove Dean Kunicki who publically advocated for ML Peterson to remain on the County Board of Education during the last election? I sent you an e-mail on this and you never responded nor did any of the committee members that I copied on it. Chris Valenzano, active member at the time, also advocated and support ML. Neither one of them or the Central COmmitte endorsed her Republican opponent, Charles Watson.

Look foward to your response on this matter. It seems to be a clear violation per the election code.

ML, if you send me your e-mail, I'll be happy to forward you the e-mail in question. That seems to be the right thing to do since I am publically talking about you.

The e-mail also brings up some other issues you should probably be aware of regarding the Board of Educations decision to vote for Vista Real. Maybe you can answer some of the questions. My e-mail is KatieTeague@verizon.net. I'll be away from my computer for the bulk of the day but will respond later this pm.

It's pretty clear what CAPC aims to do. They believe that there is some sort of center of moderates, people who belong to Dems, Repubs, and DTS. I don't particularly share this view, as it has thus far been impossible to define �moderate.� Accepting this premise, however, CAPC wants to promote candidates that it feels adhere to the same belief system as they do.

What I am unclear on, however, are the obligations of a VCRCC member. As an organization, they should obviously support all Republican candidates for office. What about individual members? Should they also support all Republican candidates, or are they allowed some leeway to deviate when they feel so compelled.

I have never been a member of the VCRCC, so I don't know. Reading from the website, doesn't help much. I would like someone with more experience and understanding to help clarify the situation. My first impression, however, is that its members should be allowed the freedom to dissent. How often and how vehemently is a separate issue. The election code certainly allows the committee to eject members, but it doesn't have to be impsoed in every case. It would appear that members of both parties would be violating the cited codes if they participate in CAPC

I would contend that there is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance that goes on in the mind of any person who simultaneously belongs to a party and CAPC. That level, however, is relatively low, and certainly within the normal range required for functioning in a pluralistic society such as ours.

Perhaps its just my interpretation, but �free enterprise, limited government and individual liberty� sounds like the textbook definition of conservativism.

Brian,

Maybe a more appropriate album cover representation in your previous blog would be Purple Rain; red + blue = purple. Purple is a passionate color.

I support CAPC mainly for their support and rating of local non-partisan candidates. Candidates that are not influenced by special interest money. Candidates that do not accept major donations from outside of our community. Candidates that do not benefit financially from their campign donors and lobbyist. Candidates that have a reputation of giving back to their community rather than taking from it to promote their own narrow agendas. Candidates that believe in Service Above Self.

Maybe when CAPC rates non-partisan candidates their party affiliation should not even be requested since it should be irrevelant.

There is a reason that the people have wanted their local office holders to be non-partisan. Communities should be governed by their residents inot a political machine.

Prince - Purple Rain Lyrics

I never meant to cause you any sorrow
I never meant to cause you any pain
I only wanted one time to see you laughing
I only want to see you laughing in the purple rain
purple rain, purple rain
I only want to see you bathing in the purple rain

I never wanted to be your weekend lover
I only wanted to be some kind of friend
baby I could never steal you from another
it's such a shame our friendship had to end
purple rain, purple rain
I only want to see you underneath the purple rain
honey, I know, I know, I know times are changing
it's time we all reach out for something new, that means you too
you say you want a leader,
but you can't seem to make up your mind
I think you better close it
and let me guide you into the purple rain
purple rain, purple rain
I only want to see you, only want to see you
in the purple rain

Owen, that textbook of yours is long out-of-date, no?

Of course Tipper Gore may consider CAPC liberals if they use "Purple Rain" as being indicative of who CAPC represents.

Katie seems to just want to fight regardless of topic.

Can we have a reasonable discussion or not?

To me it looks like if you're on the VCRCC or the VCDCC your duty is to promote your parties candidates.

CAPC appears to support candidates from any party.

Those things appear to be mutually exclusive. I don't see how you can support only Republicans on the one hand and support candidates from any party on the other.

There is a conflict in belonging to both organizations.

Since CAPC's primary mission is election reform including redistricting, from which all people benefit by having a greater voice, I see no conflict.
CAPC will reach out to all people that believe our government can do better, and that our elected officials need greater accountability.
My view has always been that government comes from the people - and we should not be dictated to by the incumbents or candidates or any other "master."

You'll pardon me Leslie, but, with all due respectthat, just sounds like double talk and spin.

Your mission statement, as posted by Katie says,

"California Association of Political Centrists (CAPC) is a non-partisan political association that supports candidates...."

Is Katie wrong? Has the mission statement changed?

In my world the meaning of "support candidates" is clear. Please don't tell us it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

In fact your statement of CAPC's primary mission doesn't even appear in CAPC's mission statement.

Did someone miss a memo?

Ron - why does this matter so much to you?

Leslie,

Because that goes directly to the question posed by this blog topic.

Why are you being so defensive?

I'm curious about why you justify your assertion that there is no conflict by putting forth a "primary mission" that is nowhere to be found in CAPC's actual mission statement.

When I point this out your response is, "Why does this matter so much to you?"

I guess my response is, "That's why we're here."

What I meant was, do you have a vested interest in the success or failure of CAPC? Or merely interest for the sake of blog debate?
We can parse words all day, and typical of political debate get mired in the minutia and forget the big picture. Or we can try to make our government more responsive to the people.

I'm speaking to the topic.

It seems that everytime you respond you try to avoid the issue at hand and shift the debate or give an answer that appears to be spin.

I'll repeat.

I'm curious about why you justify your assertion that there is no conflict by putting forth a "primary mission" of CAPC that is nowhere to be found in CAPC's actual mission statement.

Everyone will appreciate a direct answer.

I'll repeat. I see no conflict. Direct enough?

Ron, I don't understand your posts at all. Send me an e-mail and I will send you the business plan. It sounds like there is some confusion and I think you need the source documentation.

I personally think that CAPC will help both parties put up better candidates and the entire community will benefit. It's a win/win for everyone - except fringe candidates. What's not to like?

Ron, I forgot to give you my e-mail. KatieTeague@verizon.net. Look foward to hearing from you.

I understand the nature of political parties are to gain and retain power for their members.

With that said I can't believe the central committee of either party would support ANY nominee even if they hold repugnant views. I am sure if a terrorist supporter somehow won the nomination of a local party, like in an uncontested primary to take on an incumbent the Republican party would urge Republicans to vote for the Democrat.

I think all were talking about here is maximizing choice and helping voters get more information at the polls.

If the parties feel that it is against their by-laws, they also have a choice as well. Since they haven't taken action on this, then it must mean they currently accept the situation, correct?

CAPC dodges the partisan bullet, which would no doubt be aimed at Leslie by some of the "leadership" on the Rep Central Committee, by "ranking" rather than "endorsing" candidates. This is actually pretty common with many groups that count members from both parties as their members. But good for her for staying one step ahead of the vipers within her own party.

Planned Parenthood assigns a "rating" to candidates, as do unions, Sierra Club, animal rights groups, business PACS, etc. They rate candidates in all parties.

Also, some groups that you might assume would be 100% Dem in their endorsements and preference, such as the California Teachers Association, in fact endorsed McPherson (Rep) over Bowen (Dem) for Secretary of State in the last election.

The Firefighter's union does the same thing in races - picks from both parties. The Chair of the Dem Central Committee is a retired Fire Captain, and was very active in his union. Just because his union probably endorsed the occasional Rep, it did not preclude him from being a member in good standing on the Central Committee.

If a group ranks one candidate higher than another, is that not an implicit endorsement?

I'm not sure why so many of you are missing the point of the thread.

The question was how can a person justify being in leadership of a group where she promises to only support Republicans and then be in leadership of another group where she promises to support all parties. That just doesn't compute.

And Laura,

Why not ask your committee members if they'd be ok if you attached your name to leadership in a group that endorsed Republicans or DTS. Do you think they would be OK with that? You talk about your Chairman being active in his union, can you give us an example of his name, while being a VCDCC member, being associated with a Republican endorsement? Doubt it.

Also there was a previous question to Leslie in regard to her misstatement of the CAPC mission that she's not addressed. I'd also like to hear her actually answer that question.

For source information and clarification, just send an email to the Ventura County President of the CAPC, Katie Teague at KatieTeague@verizon.net. Wanna join? :>)

Leslie,

Taking the 5th?

Don't need to

I respectfully disagree.

See the many unanswered questions above.

If fact this entire blog set has raised more questions than it has answered.

It seems like CAPC is just smoke and mirrors.

Agreeing to disagree is not a bad thing. That's what civil debate is all about. One does not declare oneself the winner. The public will decide.

Are you implying that by virtue of their membership in the VCRCC they must abandon civic virtue in favor of party politics, good or bad? That would be a widely recognized definition of POLITICAL EXTREMISM...something they have taken a stand against.

I don't see the problem. Can't you be both a good Christian AND a good member in the US Armed Forces? Does membership in the VCRCC force one to give up one's right to choose between good and bad?

Ron and Voter, do either one of you have a copy of the business plan? If not, I'd be happy to send you one - just e-mail me. If you aren't willing to examine the CAPC business plan, then your arguments don't have much credance and are actually on the whiney side. If you want to argue, at least be educated about it.

Geez Katie,

Didn't you post the mission statement on the beginning of this blog?

Your post says the mission statement is one thing, Leslie says it's another. Which is right?

gs,

The question as I see it is that Leslie has promised the VCRCC that she will only support Republicans, while saying as Chair of the CAPC she will support candidates of all parties.

Both can't be true. I would think that you, with an understanding of cognitive dissonance, would see the problem.

Voter, like I said - educate yourself. You'll be more credible. I'm waiting to send you the CAPC business plan so you can get started. And if you feel you can speak for the Central Committee and what they stand for, then identify yourself. If you aren't a Central Committee member, then you need to do some homework on their business operations.

Per Brian's original question "Can a person be loyal to both groups" - it sounds like you think not. OK! This is America and you are allowed to think whatever you want.

I don't think you will find a dog to fight over the bone you keep wanting to toss out - it's a non-issue. There is no problem. Perhaps a difference of opinion but that's what makes the world go around.

I don't see any disonance with someone "promising" to support only red candidates...until she discovers that there are no good red candidates, in which case she decides to force the red candidates to change their ways by "promising" to support only the best candidates (of any color)...until the red candidates once again become the best candidates.

Good answer gs......You nailed them between the eyes.

Congrats to Laura for giving a clear picture of how other organizations (similar to CAPC) can deal with the party issues while still maintaining their own personal beliefs.

I would guess that many on the CTA board are Dems, but when you have a scorecard of issues and you have to check the boxes on the issues you end up with an objective answer, rather than a subjective answer.

I see that you can serve both entities. Leslie can look to promote middle of the road Republicans and I can assume Frank Dantona will look to promote middle of the road Democrats. Those are the only two I know enough to project, but I am sure it will be the same down the line. Occassionally, those stars will align when you get a moderate versus a lefty or a righty and then the CAPC members will support the same person.

VCRCC and CAPC? Who cares! They will both be minorities in VC within five years and every office in the County will be held by a dem within six years! The County is turning blue!