( Thanks to Mike Chandler for the photoshop. Check out his blog by clicking here. His blog covers many Simi Valley issues in detail.)

The Santa Barbara Republican Party is throwing a country western themed party to raise money for their Young Republicans.

Guests include actor Christopher Mitchum, the Steve Woods Country Western Band, and newly elected State Senator Tony Strickland.

There is going to be drinks, music and an auction for a "beaver Ronald Reagan Stetson".

The best line:

"Our Saddle Up Shindig is pure Reagan Country and was inspired by the late President's optimistic, non elitist, pro America style," commented Heather Bryden, Event Co-Chair. "Our country could use more of that."

Which president didn't have a pro-america style? Which president had an elitist style? That line seems straight out of a Sarah Palin speech.

In related country themed news Toby Keith is a Democrat. Click here for the story.

Santa Barbra Republicans have chosen a new leader that promises to focus their party on economic issues, not divisive social issues.

The new leadership in local parties got me thinking about the state budget and the difference between settling and serious goal setting.

Currently it takes a 2/3rds majority to pass a state budget that includes fees tax increases, which is different than most states. Many Republicans like this because this normally guarantees their ability to shape the budget to a certain extent.

But I don't think I like things that make Republicans give up on trying to win control of the legislature, not because it makes it too hard for taxes to be increased, but because it makes some Republicans satisfied with the small influence that they have in Sacramento. Republicans seem to have given up on ever actually being in the majority again. And why shouldn't they give up? Even if they got a majority they might not be able to pass a budget either.

But if they could pass their own budget with a simple majority taking over the legislature seems like a more important goal. It might take some conservative Democrats to cross over but I don't think it is impossible for Republicans to win in California.

So, what do you say Republicans? Do you want to follow leaders with no plan to become the majority party or are you willing to take a chance on party leaders with a new vision? A vision of becoming the new majority party?

Say what you will about the ethics and personal charisma of Newt Gingrich he didn't have a loser's mentality. It took him years to do it but he organized the take over of the House by Republicans for the 1st time in 1994 since the era of Dwight Eisenhower! If you have party leaders with no plan to attract enough people to become the majority party in California, elect new leaders or run yourself.

No matter what party we support most of us recognize that competitive elections benefit all of us. When a party grows complacent corruption and special interest politics are going to grow.

Republicans: California needs you to stop settling for a few seats in the legislature and to come up with bold plans and new candidates that can attract new voters to your party. It is in all of our best interests. It isn't for me to lecture you too much about not becoming the party of Sarah Palin in California ( if you think it will work then go for it!) or what conservative principles to give up on, but if your leaders don't have a plan to change we are all in trouble.

This isn't about passing a budget this year, raising taxes this year, or any of that. What I am really interested in is knowing if Republicans are coming up with a long term plan to put control of the legislature in play.

Republicans, do you plan to be in the permanent minority or are you planning to change the game up?

In a press release Greg Gandrud has called out Pedro Nava for avoiding him. Click on continue reading to see it. Do you like that I post the full press releases from most campaigns? I don't want to tell you what campaigns said as much as show you what they said.

I do feel that serious challengers should have a chance to debate their opponents. So, my question is has Greg Gandrud shown he is a serious challenger in this campaign? I don't live in that district so it is difficult to get a proper assessment.

Click here to see a Q and A with Greg Gandrud that he did on my blog.

The 35th State Assembly District is currently represented by Democrat Pedro Nava, who replaced Hannah-Beth Jackson when her 6 years were up. Republican Gregory Gandrud would like to replace Pedro Nava in the State Assembly.

What questions do you have for Gregory Gandrud ?

Here are a few from me to start us off:

1. To compromise with Democrats, the governor, and Republicans would you support any tax increases at all if it was a part of a package that reduced some spending?
2. Who was the last member of the Democratic party that you voted for?
3. Will you be supporting the amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman again or do you support keeping same sex marriage legal?

(State Assembly District 35 map. Do not click on it.)