I enjoyed immensely speaking the group last night - and fielded a lot of sophisticated and thoughtful questions.

I dug in my heels over the Gallegly issue even after I heard from the state chairman, who wanted to make my "departure" easier. That's when I told him that the party was chewing up women and spitting them out. And I felt it best left up to the local party - where they could answer for for their actions.

CAPC will host candidate forums this year for the Ventura City Council race, and also looks forward to educating the public about issues and candidates in a very busy 2010 election year.

Leslie:

Is there any evidence out there that suggests redistricting would have passed without a prop 8 on the ballot?

Scott-
So are you suggesting that one initiative on the ballot helped another pass? Always possible. Prop 8 turned out the social conservative vote. I haven't seen statistics on how they voted on redistricting.

CAPC strongly supported the redistricting initiative as part of our mission to effect election reform. We are thrilled it passed and look forward to watching how it will take effect after the next census.

Redistricting is not a cure-all, but it is a good measure that will open up some races statewide. You can't have legislators drawing their own districts! Major conflict of interest.

On your second I agree. On the first, I was just wondering if you had read or seen any evidence that prop 8 turned out conservatives that made the difference razor thin victory for redistricting? I haven't seen anything to draw a conclusion.

We could go with anecdotal evidence to start with. How did you two vote on those propositions? I voted for redistricting and I voted against banning gay marriage.

It sounds like the VCRCC has a classic case of Cornejophobia - A fear of women who have their own opinions.

Leslie,

What other challenges did you encounter with the VCRCC besides supporting a different Republican candidate? Mike Osborne seems like a very likeable guy. I can’t invision any other problems arising.

What differentiates a "moderate” Republican from your basic garden variety Republican?

Most moderates by my definition have a consistent view of the word conservative - limited government - both in financial and in social issues. This means doing the most you can to preserve our way of life without oppressive laws and too many taxes. That used to be the garden variety Republican until the Southern Democrats (social conservatives) joined the party and caused a split.

I believe that the people - the registered voters within a party, should influence and run that party and define it's issues. It's about grassroots. This differs drastically with the VCRCC in its current state, which is run by candidates and the money in the party they control to help themselves get re-elected. It's a top-to-bottom view, where the candidates and their enablers get the perks and advantages and pick their own successor when they leave office. And they dish out chores to the volunteers and make them believe it's "grassroots."

It's a difference of opinion on how you have a government by the people.

Thanks for hanging out here all day, Leslie. Your opinion is valued.

The VC Democrats don't operate like that at all! It's sort of a free-for-all. But of course they don't accept huge chunks of cash from Altria, either.

OMG, I just looked and the Star changed my blog photo. Unexpected.

Yeah, Marie, with that new, more detailed picture, everyone will now recognize you when you are doing all your shopping at the Oxnard WalMart!

I am trying to get them to change it back. I had no idea they were doing that.

You won't catch me in the Oxnard Wal-Mart. Trader Joes or Target maybe.

If you go to the California Secretary of State website and look at the campaign filing, you will notice that the VCRCC has a lot of money coming in and going out for out of district candidates as well as the Stricklands. This out-of-district stuff requires the efforts of Mike Osborne - he is real nice to people like the Stricklands - not so nice to the rest of county.

Leslie,

Your quote "Most moderates by my definition have a consistent view of the word conservative - limited government - both in financial and in social issues" would be great, if it were true.

Theocratic fundamentalism is not the only extremism that has taken hold of the GOP. Market fundamentalism has as well, and so has belligerent foreign policy. The Republican Party used to be the party of Eisenhower. Even Richard Nixon declared "we're all Keynesians now", and EVEN St. Ronald himself raised taxes to balance the budget.

It would be nice just to blame the SBC and Dixiecrats for GOP extremism, but it just isn't true. The GOP isn't just the party of Elmer Gantry today. It's also the party of Gordon Gekko, and proudly so.

David, the GOP isn't the enemy - extreminism is and it exists and is supported on both sides. The broad middle isn't being represented by either party either locally or nationally.

Katie Teague has it wrong.
Deregulation started with R. Reagan ending with our last president.
That was extremism.
What is and where is the "middle ground"?
Ted Kennedy maybe the left in the U.S. but in Canada he would be the "middle ground".

Martin-
Didn't Kennedy push for deregulation of the airline industry? That went well. And it shows mistakes can be made by all.

I say, blame goes to both parties for spending more time working on the next elections rather than working together on our complex problems. I am horrified that my own party in Congress spent money like there was no tomorrow while they were in power, but the solution now is not for the Democrats to spend even more money.

My own city of Oxnard was just offered federal bond money they didn't ask for and don't know really how to spend.

We need to be smart - but apparently it's easier to treat each other like the devil (a la the grenade lobbing).

Leslie:

I agree with your last point. Unfortunately, it is easier to demonize. One thing I generally think is also missing is innovative ideas. What new ideas are you seeing from independent voters?

Katie,

Extremism on both sides? Nice platitude, but there's no evidence for it. Dems can't even cobble together enough Senators for a public option on healthcare supported by 72% of the American people. Americans support single-payer, and that's not even an option on the table. Americans support abortion rights, comprehensive immigration reform, etc. Just about the only thing Americans still don't agree with Dems completely is guns and gay marriage, and Dems back off of those issues consistently. Republicans advocate for a host of unpopular positions continually.

Until Democrats in America stand up for policies at least as far left as those espoused by *conservatives* in Europe, we don't have an extremism problem on both sides. It's one-sided.

Unless you can point to multiple instances of leftist extremism being taken seriously in the halls of congress?

Most Dems I know agree with me - there are plenty of extremists in their party.

Locally, I have met nuts on both sides.

I personally feel that Maxine Waters, Ted Kennedy, Jessie Jackson, Mike Huckabee, Tony Strickland, the recently in the news Ensign are all examples of extremists - some are so extreme, they think they are above the law.

Katie,

Please focus on *issues*. Of course there are nuts on both sides. So what? What matters is legislators, and the issues they promote, and whether the nuts are taken seriously.

Further, your choice of legislators is strange. Huckabee is actually a moderate compared to the likes of Sanford, Palin, Perry, McConnell, Bachmann, Gingrich, etc. The only thing you can really fault the Huckster for is young earth creationism, in the extremism department. Jesse Jackson? Is he a legislator? Ensign is a regular Republican, no more extreme than the usual, by voting record. Ted Kennedy? On which issue exactly is he "extreme"?

Please tell me which positions advocated by serious Democratic leaders and a majority of Democratic legislators are "extremist". I can list you a boatload of manistream GOP positions that are flatly extremist.

David-
Would you say that the Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a moderate who works to find common ground with her counterparts across the aisle? Is she the best person to bring people together?
Do you think that the Democrats made a mistake in choosing her as their leader?

David, if you think the GOP is the only party guilty of extremism, that fine. It was very appropriate that you debated Mike Gibson on the Dennert blog.

Thank you everyone for the wonderful conversation here.

I have a new blog interface! I really like it. My blog was the first to transition to it. Let me know if you encounter any problems with it.

Thank you to Matthew Saint at the Star for all his hard work on this.

Katie,

C'mon, that's a dodge and an ad hominem. Equating me with Mike Gibson is just as empty a platitude as "both sides are extremist". It begs the question.

You made a statement. I asked you to provide evidence rather than just platitudes. Is that so much to ask?

I'm asking you to tell me exactly what issues being promoted by a majority of the Democrats in Congress you would define as extremist. Which ones? Extremism can be defined on any specific issue as out of the mainstream of American public opinion, and by all rights more generally out of the worldwide mainstream. Extremism is *not* X politician or *Y* politician is arrogant, corrupt or abuses authority--though even there GOP corruption is far worse than Dem corruption, but let's not belabor that point.

On the issues, name me the majority-supported Democratic extremist position please. It's a simple question. If you're going to claim that both sides are equally extremist, you're going to have to back that statement up.

Leslie,

I think that Nancy Pelosi supports positions that themselves are supported by the majority of the American People.

I think that the Democratic Congress has gone much farther out of its way to be "bipartisan" than the GOP congress ever did.

And I think that "bipartisanship" does NOT equal "moderate". Moderate is defined as being in the center of American public opinion, NOT by being in the center of the two parties.

Pelosi and her fellow Dems caved to Bush on everything, despite Bush's personal unpopularity and the unpopularity of his policies. McConnell's GOP refuses to go along with *anything* Obama wants, despite Obama's popularity and the overt popularity of the majority of his policies.

Take the healthcare public option. If Dems were "extremist", we'd be advancing single-payer over the top of Republican opposition. Single-payer is, after all, quite popular. That's what the GOP would have done in our shoes. Instead, we're pushing a "public option" with 72% support. That's what you call a moderate compromise.

Is the GOP giving any ground? No, they aren't. Reid's Senate is wavering, but Pelosi's congress is standing strong to GOP utter obstructionism of what is already a watered down compromise.

Shall we really get rid of Pelosi and replace her with someone like Harry Reid, just to "compromise" further with the GOP until healthcare reform isn't any kind of reform at all?

Bipartisanship for its own sake is a fetish, and a fool's errand--particularly when one side is consistently extremist, deeply unpopular, and led by a radio shock jock.

and btw, that's DemocratIC Speaker of the House.

Next person to use "democrat" as an adjective will receive responses from me calling the GOP "Publicans".

David - meant no offense on the Democrat vs Democratic terminology. I actually bend over backwards to lead a civil, respectful discussion, and may have double-negatived the thing into using the wrong term in my desire NOT to offend.

Let's not be so touchy - it leads to distracting arguments over relatively unimportant issues, when we really need to try and find a way to work together to solve our problems.

President Bush had great opportunity to bring the country together after 9/11. Does everyone remember all of Congress standing together united? Well, that didn't last long, as soon as political strategists on the right decided that our fears were the perfect issue to win Congressional elections in 2002. The Democrats didn't fight it, because to do so would have looked "unpatriotic."
It was good campaign strategy, but it was at the expense of a unified nation. The politics of hate has damaged our country.

Do you respect the opinions of others that differ from your own if they come from thoughtful discussion and life experience, rather than from listening to hate-speak and shock jocks?

What the GOP did during the Bush years was very telling of what we can expect in the future if they were to regain power. It's every Americans duty to make sure it never happens again.

Leslie,

I agree completely on the history of the Bush era. Sorry to be so touchy on "Democrat" vs. "Democratic".

And yes, I absolutely respect the opinions of others that differ from my own stemming from thoughtful discussion and life experience. For instance, I respect those who are pro-life in all circumstances, and have a certain admiration for the power of their conviction.

The other side of the ideological spectrum actually doesn't bother me as much as those who attempt to claim that both sides are equally extreme, and play at finding some "middle ground" between the parties. David Brooks annoys me less than does David Broder. I would rather watch Fox News, which is at least honest in its propaganda, than "he said, she said" journalism which equates, for example, reputable scientists with global warming deniers as if they worthy of equal respect.

There's reality, and there's fantasy. If someone who disagrees with me can claim a greater hold on objective reality, so be it. I will either reverse or mitigate my position, or we can agree to disagree. But it has to be based on reality, not platitudes.

The reality right now is that on the issues, issue by issue, Republicans hold extremist and minority positions unsupported by the public and by fact-based evidence and science. Democrats, by and large, support majoritarian and science-based positions.

Katie, Leslie, Scott, Martin and Mssr. Atkins...
My, my…the pulsating polemics from the political panjandrums are pregnant with possibilities....

The point, dear bloggers, is not Democratic Demons vs. Republican Renegades, nor is it moderation versus extremism.. To paraphrase my favorite Rajun-Cajun, James Carville, "..it's the absence of fundamental political leadership, stupid.. pure and simple.."

Take Sacramento...Schwarznegger, Steinberg, Blakeslee, Bass and Hollingsworth.. they're all alike..

They all fail the fundamental test of leadership, which was expressed well by Henry Kissinger when he said, ".. a leader takes people from where they are to where they need to be,.."

Last year they fiddled and diddled from June to February, almost nine-months, to pass what was hailed as "the Grand Budget Compromise," designed to bring fiscal peace in our times. What a joke, it was based on rosy economic assumptions that all of them, to a person, knew in their heart of hearts were as phony as a three-dollar bill.

And what did they do in a time of great economic distress, rising unemployment and net-migration of high-paying manufacturing jobs from California??

Why they passed a State-budget which raised sales and income taxes on an average working class family of four (that is if they still had a job) amounting to about $1,200 per year, while at the same-time giving Hollywood and Silicon-Valley mega-corporations $1 Billion plus in tax breaks based on back-room deals cut behind closed-doors, since virtually all of them, Democrats and Republicans alike have their campaign war chests bankrolled by these very same mega-corporations, and their fellow-traveling economic elites.

Now, you would think that after putting thousands of students, teachers, working-families, and people with disabilities through ungodly fiscal hell during the interminably long budget crisis last year, all these legislators would have gotten off their partisan high-horses, swallowed their pride, and compromised to pass a State budget on-time this year. If for no other reason, than out of personal shame. NOT!

Here we are, more than eight days after the June 15th statutory deadline for passage of a State budget with no budget. Less than one month away from utter fiscal insolvency. And what are the Governator and Mr. Steinberg doing? While they are exchanging gag-gifts to score points with their admiring minions.

As you can see from the URL above, Mr. Steinberg decides to respond to our Girly-Man Governator’s claim that Democrats are “hallucinating” if they think he’ll support raising taxes as part of the budget compromise by sending him a bag of mushrooms. Got Psilocybin anyone?

And what does Arnie do in return? Why since he’s quite familiar with Hollywood media tricks, he sends Mr. Steinberg, whom he fondly calls, “Steinie” a pair of Metal Bull Testicles, sending him an obvious message about the intestinal, or lower, fortitude he thinks the Democrats need to have when it comes to saying no to teachers, public employee unions and other core constituencies.

And this, Loquacious Lakinites, is what passes for political leadership in the Golden State today??

You can bet that that the likes of Pat Brown , Ronald Reagan, Bob Moretti, Bob Monaghan, and Leo McCarthy are looking down from political heaven in utter disgust and sadness at these 21st Century political bozos when they see what their successors in State stewardship are doing, or more accurately, failing to do, in River City!

NostraDemus

In a nutshell, there is a lack of leadership because no leaders are being elected. Why? Because they don't pander to the extremists like the current crop of elected officials do.

The Republican party is a faith-based organization. What is "faith" based? My definition of faith based is a belief in something which has a huge amount of evidence of the contrary.

The people in the middle; for the most part, are not motivated enough to get involved. They don't have the passion about issues that the extremists do. It sounds like a huge battle getting those folks organized.

And how exactly are they supposed to lead? Under what guidelines?

Nearly every Republican signed Grover Norquist's "No Tax" Pledge, and almost none will budge on that. They would call that "leadership". Republicans who refuse to allow any tax increases aren't just pandering to special interests: they're playing to the crazy base that elected what few of them there are. If they were to raise taxes, they would get voted out of office in a primary election.

Democrats are unwilling to come up with a cuts-only budget--as well they should. Those who refused to do a cuts-only budget are certainly "leaders" in my book. It's not pandering to extremist interests to do so, it's simply looking out for the state and the will of the vast majority of CA voters.

The big problem with the state isn't a lack of leadership. Change the people, you'll get the same results. It's a structure problem, and that structure problem is the 2/3 requirement for budgets and revenues.

Get rid of that, and Democrats will be able to lead as they were elected to do, and if they overreach voters can throw them out of office. It's pretty simple.
All this talk of "working out a sensible bipartisan solution" is fetishism. It's not what the people want. The people who elect Republicans want no new taxes at any cost. They also want mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, but that's not even touched. The people who elect Democrats want progressive taxation to pay for good social services. They also want single-payer healthcare and marijuana legalization, but those aren't even touched by our legislators.

You can't "compromise" on that. One side is going to win, and one side is going to lose. The only thing that prevents the clear winner of that argument from actually following through is the 2/3 rule.

Personal qualities of the leaders in question are irrelevant.

Student-
While we tease amongst ourselves about being rabid moderates, I promise you we have passion about reforming politics and making sure the middle "swing vote" makes the difference in political races. And a big part of that is educating the voters to make thoughtful government choices - not knee jerk choices.

Those who are DTS (independent) voters just don't fit into the straight-jacket ideologies dictated by the Congressional leadership of both parties. Are you aware of the profile of the independent voter? 2/3 male, more young than old, 2:1 pro choice, leaning libertarian - willing to accept fewer government services in order to pay less taxes, growing in ethnic numbers, wants the border enforced, savvy in electonics and communications, environmentalist. Which of the two parties fits? Neither, and that is why there is a growing number if independent voters that need sources of good political information, who are unwilling to identify with either party as their own.

Believe me, the swing voter is passionate. They just don't have a political home.