Ronald Reagan

How the California Republican Party Can Win Elections Again

June 27, 2018 By Todd Royal 5 Comments

The California Republican Party (CRP) has been a disaster since Gov. Pete Wilson’s re-election campaign and Gov. Schwarzenegger accelerated its demise when in 2006 to save his failed governorship he passed Assembly Bill 32 – the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which has done nothing to lessen emissions in California. The fault lies with the leadership of the CRP and the big-money donors who pushed for the top two primary now called “the jungle primary.” Republicans are also losing in the state because stalwart conservatives (#NeverTrumpers, Evangelicals and older-white voters) long for the day of Ronald Reagan or some pure conservative candidate that doesn’t exist. Democrats though only care about winning and will do anything possible to achieve power.

As a former candidate for the 43^rd California State Assembly district in 2014 where I made the top two against the Democratic incumbent there were valuable lessons that I took away from my election. Subsequently, my election into the top two allowed me CRP voting rights at the county and state level, and I was also elected to the CRP presidential nominating committee that assisted drafting the party platform. That platform is now being followed by Trump to incredible economic success. In other words, Republicans can win, but here’s what needs to happen.

FIGHT

The days of the congenial white male of George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and most of all, Ronald Reagan are over. Fight or don’t run. California isn’t working and Joel Kotkin, Michael Shellenberger, Ed Ring, and Heather MacDonald give detailed reason on issues ranging from unsustainable environmental laws to racism emanating from the Democratic party. Ed Ring also gives policy recommendations for any candidate struggling to find his or her voice on the campaign trail in California.

As an example here’s how John Cox can defeat Gavin Newsom on global warming by asking this questions backed by facts. Gavin, if global warming is really happening and your party has the answers by overtaxing energy and relying on green energy that doesn’t work then answer me this from Dr. Walter Williams:

“Today’s CO2 concentration levels worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level is trivial compared to earlier geological periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures were about the same as they are today.”

And other periods of history like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) are warmer than today with average global temperatures as high as 73 F.

Then explain to me Gavin how exactly are humans causing global warming when the earth was significantly hotter when humans or dinosaurs hadn’t evolved on the global scene yet and more significantly the industrial revolution or fossil fuels weren’t yet in existence? Ask this simple question and watch him and the entire Democratic Party stumble at the polls.

This can also be done with abortion. Make it a geopolitical issue instead of a social one by asking: It’s been proven here that countries that allow abortion are more hegemonic in nature (the United States, Russia and China); therefore Mr. or Ms. Democrat do you believe in war more than you believe in peace by allowing abortion?

Democrats have been trapping Republicans for decades with false canard-like statements; reverse the narrative on them and fight back otherwise California will continue cratering into the abysmal dustbin of failed leftist states. These are just two examples of how this can be done but if you aren’t ready to know your facts, have the ability to build a narrative that improves people’s lives and answer your critics then don’t run in California.

THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

Highlight how Republican policies are always better economically than Democratic ones. From single-payer health care that would cost over $400 billion a year in California to the highest taxes in the nation the CRP has dropped the ball for decades on economic issues. Here are the facts candidates can use on the trail to help Republicans in California keep control of Congress and possibly win the governorship.

The Republican-killer – President Bill Clinton – used Republican polices to Democratic gains and left office with unusually high approval ratings understood Americans and I’d add Californians by advocating, “it’s the economy, stupid.” President Donald Trump seems to have figured that axiom out with May’s U.S. jobs growth forecast that blows past expectation according to the Wall Street Journal. Over 223,000 jobs were added in May and the unemployment rate went down to 3.8% and is the lowest level since 1969. Black unemployment is at record lows and the number of Americans employed set its ninth record under Trump.

Somehow the CPR hasn’t figured out what Trump, Clinton and other Americans have always known: in America people vote with their wallets, first and foremost. The CPR and California Republican candidates can win in California by also hammering home this fact from the Los Angeles Times, “There now are more job openings in the U.S. than unemployed workers to fill them.” Use Clinton tactics and call it the Republican economy and go into minority neighborhoods and ask if Gavin Newsom and the Democrats provided this type of economic progress under President Obama? The answer is no and you will pull percentages of votes away from Democrats you never thought possible.

WALK PRECINCTS

The biggest mistake candidates make is not walking precincts. What voters want is to know you care enough to speak to them and can explain complex issues in an understandable fashion that doesn’t have them spending hours reading The Economist or need a master’s in public policy to understand what you are saying. By walking precincts it allows you to connect and I know from experience that every precinct I walked or in particular this one volunteer named Marv walked, I won. I was a no-name candidate who only raised $26,000 but beat the former Democratic incumbent Chairman of the Assembly Appropriations Committee everywhere I walked the precinct.

President Obama said this in a recent interview for BBC’s Today program about meeting hostile, biased people and voters:

“When you meet people face to face, it turns out they’re complicated, there may be somebody who you think is diametrically opposed to you when it comes to their political views, but you root for the same sports team. You find areas of common ground. It’s hard to be obnoxious and cruel in person.”

And that’s exactly what I encountered on the campaign trail – people who told me they were openly hostile to Republicans listened to me – and ultimately they voted for me as well. Party insiders told me I would receive roughly 8-14% of the vote and I got over 35% by walking the district. Republicans can win the 43rd district again and can also win a majority of California; there is no reason to split the state into three different parts.

Democrats have been going into Red states and Christian churches – supposedly hostile places for decades – it’s time for Republicans to use these three tactics and start winning in California again. It will take multiple election cycles but California can once again be a Republican stronghold that includes every race, color and creed in the state. America needs for California to once again be an incubator of dreams and upward mobility if the CRP will stop longing for Reagan and candidates begin following the three simple steps that I know are a proven template to electoral success.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Donald Trump, Gavin Newsom, Ronald Reagan, Todd Royal

Dana Rohrabacher – The Last Reaganite Battles the “Resistance,” George Soros and Never Trump

May 22, 2018 By Bill Saracino 7 Comments

One early morning in the Spring of 1966, Ronald Reagan walked out the front door of his home at 1669 San Onofre Drive in Pacific Palisades. Wearing pajamas, bathrobe and shaving cream on his half-shaved face his purpose was to find the morning paper. He also found a young fan who became a lifelong friend, supporter and co-worker – Dana Rohrabacher.

Dana had spent most of the night camped out on Reagan’s front lawn, determined to save the newly formed “Youth for Reagan.” The gray beards in the gubernatorial campaign had determined that having an official youth arm would be too much trouble and ordered it disbanded. Rohrabacher, then chairman of Los Angeles Harbor College Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), was determined to save it.

Happily, Reagan was chairman of the California YAF Advisory Board, knew of the effective campus activism of its members and agreed with Dana that an energized youth arm would be an asset to his campaign. A few days later the campaign’s elders mysteriously changed their mind and reinstated the youth operation – staffed mainly by YAF members and serving as a huge recruiting tool for YAF throughout the campaign.

This was just the first of many times through the years that the Reagan-Rohrabacher collaboration worked together to accomplish good things. From Dana’s work in the ’76 and ’80 presidential campaigns to his seven years as a Special Assistant and speech writer in the Reagan White House to his clandestine trip to Afghanistan to help the anti-communist Mujahedeen to his career as one of the most reliably conservative, Reaganesque members of Congress it has always been clear that Dana and the Gipper had the equivalent of the Vulcan mind meld.

This has not gone un-noticed by friend or foe. Dana’s political profile – among other things lifetime ratings of 95% from the American Conservative Union, 97% from the National Tax Limitation Committee and A+ from the NRA – has long put him at the top of the Left’s enemies list. This year, energized by the “resistance” movement and funded by admitted former Nazi George Soros, the far left sees its chance to get revenge. Soros is spending millions of dollars in California to elect candidates who will implement his far-left ideas.

Concentrating on congressional and district attorney races, Soros is replacing the Left’s pink “pussy hats” with his green financial resources. Laundering money through various front groups and PACs he has helped target congressional seats in Orange County currently held by conservatives. Taking down Dana is at the top of the Left’s wish list.

Sadly it is also at the top of the wish lists of some Never Trump die-hards and a political huckster named Scott Baugh. As I wrote previously, Baugh is a former legislator, former lobbyist and full time self-promoter. He doesn’t talk much about his legislative career, and with good reason. The two “achievements” that stand out are his vote in favor of giving illegal aliens “in state” tuition to the U.C. System and twisting arms in the Assembly so other Republicans would join him in supporting the disastrous 1999 “pension spiking” legislation. That bill today is bankrupting cities and has left the state with hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded pension liabilities. Thanks, Scott.

Neither does he talk about his public promises of two years not to run against Dana and to refund contributor’s already-given contributions. He has done neither, so on top of everything else, Baugh is also a liar. We have enough of his kind of creature in the D.C. swamp already.

Unable to talk about his own record, his campaign against Rohrabacher has been scurrilous, duplicitous and truth challenged. Given Baugh’s refusal to be photographed with President Trump during a recent presidential Orange County visit, it is not surprising that his campaign is receiving support from local “Never Trump” bitter-enders. These folks thought the country would be better off with Hillary Clinton as president. They now think the country would be better off with Scott Baugh in Congress. As John Wayne said, “Life is hard. It’s even harder when you’re stupid.”

Baugh’s main critique of Dana is that he hasn’t passed enough bills during his time in Congress. Baugh may not know that when Obama left office there were 95,894 pages in the Federal Registrar. Because of President Trump’s regulation cutting and Dana Rohrabacher’s refusal to add new laws solely for the purpose of “doing something,” the number of pages has been reduced to a mere 61,950. Baugh thinks it’s the duty of congressmen to endlessly add more pages. Donald Trump add Dana Rohrabacher think 61,950 is still too many, but at least headed in the right direction.

Unlike Baugh, President Trump and Rohrabacher agree with Barry Goldwater, who in “Conscience of a Conservative” wrote: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” Someone needs to send Baugh a copy of “Conscience” and explain that passing more laws is in neither the conscience nor definition of a conservative.

A common question about Baugh’s campaign is “why now?” It is widely believed that this will be Dana’s final re-election. His service to the conservative movement, the Republican Party and the country have more than earned him the right to retire on his own timetable. Millions of dollars will be spent in this race that could have been saved for the November battles against the Democrats. Why? GOP activists have been divided. Why? Why can’t Baugh do the decent, honorable thing and wait until 2020?

Because of a diminutive, conservative tiger named Michelle Park Steel. A member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and Korean by birth, Steel is wildly popular with both the GOP rank and file and the county’s Asian community – which just happens to be the fastest growing demographic group.

She has become a major leader in the statewide pushback against the insane “sanctuary” state and city laws. There are now 40 cities and 10 counties officially resisting the state’s “all criminal illegals welcome” sanctuary policy. She was at the White House last week meeting with President Trump and Attorney General Sessions to brief them on the burgeoning anti-sanctuary movement she is helping to empower.

Steel would obliterate Baugh in a 2020 primary election, and that is why he cannot do what even he and his most fervid supporters must know in their heart of hearts is the right thing – wait for two years. Personal ambition apparently trumps all in Baugh-world.

Dana’s and my mutual friend Ed Meese is likely the proper owner of the “last Reaganite” title, but Dana can easily claim it for members of Congress. From the half-shaven candidate meeting the teen-aged acolyte on the front lawn grew a lifelong association that spanned decades – on the campaign trail, in the White House, on Air Force One, at State of the Union speeches and so much more.

I know these are memories Dana cherishes, as the last Reaganite fights on. He is in a two-front war against the Soros-funded “resistance” and the blind ambition of a conservative poseur with a campaign fueled by Republicans who still hate President Trump. Orange county was pivotal in launching Ronald Reagan’s political career. County voters who want to win one more for the Gipper have an opportunity to do so – by re-electing Dana Rohrabacher.

Bill Saracino is a member of the Editorial Board of CA Political Review.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Bill Saracino, Dana Rohrabacher, Ronald Reagan

Trump’s Incentive-Packed Tax Plan

October 6, 2017 By Larry Kudlow 5 Comments

Much as he did in his command performance before the United Nations, when he took back control of U.S. foreign policy, President Donald Trump has seized and energized the tax cut issue. Almost daily, he is pounding away on the themes of faster economic growth and more take-home pay, arguing that his plan will make America’s economy great again.

“Under my administration,” Trump just told the National Association of Manufacturers, “the era of economic surrender is over.”

The Trump plan would slash large- and small-business tax rates, double the standard deduction for middle-income folks, make the whole tax code simpler by eliminating unnecessary deductions, repeal the death tax and end the alternative minimum tax.

As usual, Democrats say the president’s plan is a handout to the rich. But in a recent speech in Indianapolis, Trump asked: Why can’t this be a bipartisan tax cut bill?

…

The argument that the U.S. is doomed to 2 percent or less growth — “secular stagnation” no matter what we do in terms of tax policy — is nonsense. Across-the-board tax cuts produced 5 percent annual growth during the JFK period. And after tax cuts were fully implemented in 1983, real growth averaged 4.6 percent for the remainder of Reagan’s presidency.

…

OK, let’s take one example from the Trump tax plan. Corporations today are taxed at 35 percent. That means, for every extra dollar of profit, a company keeps 65 cents. But the president has agreed on a 20 percent corporate tax rate. So, for the extra dollar earned, the private company would keep 80 cents.

…

On the individual side, the sleeper tax detail is the doubling of the standard deduction. This is a huge positive for young millennials (who don’t own much) and folks with no mortgages or homes. It puts more cash in worker’s pockets, simplifies the code and means that near 80 percent of taxpayers won’t have any deductions.

Slimming income-tax rates from seven to three brackets and cutting income-tax rates in general add even more supply-side incentives to the Trump package.

More money for rich people? Well, the not-rich family of four will be a lot better off with a $24,000 standard deduction. And the center-right Tax Foundation calculates that the bottom 80 percent of households get a lower tax burden, while the top 20 percent get a higher burden.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, Tax Foundation, Tax Reform

Democrats Finally See The Bear

January 18, 2017 By Bill Saracino 7 Comments

President Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign ran a 30 second TV commercial titled “The Bear.” The video was simply a bear walking slowly through a forest. The narration was equally simple: “There is a bear in the woods. For some people, the bear is easy to see. Others don’t see it at all. Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it’s vicious and dangerous. Since no one can really be sure who’s right, isn’t it smart to be as strong as the bear? If there is a bear.” At the end of the narrative a man appeared on screen and the bear retreated.

The ad was devastatingly effective because the American people easily recognized the message. The Russian bear was roaming the world looking for countries and societies to swallow and force into a global communist “workers paradise.” President Reagan had been a lifelong opponent of communism, while American liberals were boosters of the Kremlin Commissars and vociferous opponents of Reagan, and any American politician who stood strong against communist imperialism.

Since at least 1968 the mainstream of the Democrat Party has been knee-jerk in its opposition to American anti-communism and equally knee-jerk in its support of Russian expansionism and mischief making around the globe. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, then America’s ambassador to the U.N., coined the phrase “Blame America First” to describe the Democrats at the 1984 GOP Convention. She was 100 percent correct and by 1984 the American electorate instinctively understood that. This understanding greatly contributed to Reagan’s 49 state sweep in the election.

Which brings us to the current Democrat hysteria about Russian “hacking” of our recent election – a pure fiction – and their artificial horror that President Trump has been civil to Russian President Putin. Here are two predictions you can take to the bank about all this: 1) The Democrat disdain for Russian authoritarianism is 100 percent phony, as 21^st century American liberalism is indistinguishable from Russian totalitarianism; and 2) At the first sign that the Commie Cossaks in Moscow are at odds with President Trump on any policy, the Democrats will pivot on a dime and revert to their slogan of “no enemies on the Left” which has guided their foreign policy positions for 50 years. Trump will be the bully and Putin the aggrieved good guy.

For those looking for a bit of déjà vu, feast on some of the epithets (for UCLA grads that means mean words) thrown at President Reagan.

“He has always been drawn to radical activities. He has a propensity toward right wing radical activities … a flawed person with a defective mind … Reagan has a bully syndrome, combined with a very inadequate personality … it’s a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous combination.” – Former CIA Director John Stockwell.

I listed this first so those with short attention spans can add some perspective to the current cow pies being thrown at President Trump by our “intelligence” agencies.

“He is the most dangerous person ever to come this close to the presidency … he is a menace to the human race.” – The Nation” magazine.

This rag is still publishing, and as you might guess said almost exactly the same thing about Donald Trump.

“He is shallow, superficial and frightening” – Time magazine.

Hmm, now where have I heard that recently?

“He’s a criminal who used the Constitution as toilet paper.” – Actor John Cusack, proving that the current generation of Hollywood “stars” is not the first to be brain dead.

Though there’s tons more I think you get the idea. But there’s one more historical tidbit that should not be overlooked in a conversation about Russia, America and elections. That is the fact that the waddling sot from Massachusetts – Senator Ted Kennedy – Democrat hero and role model to testosterone overloaded Democrats everywhere, directly – yes directly – asked the Kremlin Commissars to help defeat Reagan for re-election.

In 1984 communist aggression was still in full flower around the globe, from Afghanistan to Africa to Central America. Because of KGB files released after the collapse of the Soviet Union (thank you Ronald Reagan), we now know that the last “Camelot” torch bearer took time out from his pastimes of mainlining Scotch and drowning his secretarial staff to make secret overtures to the KGB to thwart Reagan’s re-election.

According to the February 2, 1992 “London Times,” “In a letter addressed to then-Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov, dated May 14, 1983, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov explained that Kennedy was eager to ‘counter the militaristic policies’ of Reagan.” Former Sen. John Tunney, D-Calif., who was Kennedy’s law school roommate at the University of Virginia, traveled to Moscow on May 9 and 10, 1983, just days before Chebrikov’s letter, presumably to make the plea in person.

This is not to imply that “Teddy” was a communist – he was not. He was a drunk and a whore-monger whose meager IQ points were easily overpowered by ambition and Johnny Walker Red. But is most certainly is to state unequivocally that the current Democrat shock at Russia taking an active interest in our elections is 100 percent phony. The Kennedy / KGB story has been in circulation without credible refutation for a decade or more.

I have no qualms about how President Trump will deal with Vladimir Putin. Trump and Putin will deal with each other as George Patton and the Russian General did in that memorable scene from “Patton,” when they finally agreed to toast the end of the war “one SOB to another.”

And while it is refreshing to hear that the Democrats finally acknowledge the existence of a dangerous bear in the world, and nice that they actually say something bad about Russia – we’ve been waiting only 50 years for them to do so – that tune will change the nanosecond that President Trump is at odds with Putin.

The Democrats will revert to their default foreign policy stance – regardless of the adversary or circumstance, the United States is wrong. There is no bear. Happily President Trump will be leading an America with a newly invigorated self respect and armed forces ready to oppose the bear, ISIS and any other threat to America’s freedoms. Amazing grace.

Bill Saracino is a member of the Editorial Board of CA Political Review.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Bill Saracino, Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, Russia, Vladimir Putin

How Would President Hillary Affect California?

October 27, 2016 By John Seiler 4 Comments

Photo courtesy SEIU International, flickr

Should Hillary Clinton be elected president on Nov. 8, how would that affect California?

1) National recession. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard just reported in the Telegraph, “The risk of a U.S. recession next year is rising fast. The Federal Reserve has no margin for error. Liquidity is suddenly drying up. Early warning indicators from U.S. ‘flow of funds’ data point to an incipient squeeze, the long-feared capitulation after five successive quarters of declining corporate profits.”

Uh-oh.

There are ways to deal with this. When something similar happened 35 years ago, President Reagan and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker met it with cuts in taxes and regulations and stabilizing the dollar at $350 an ounce of gold – even though Volcker pushed up interest rates to kill off the 1970s inflation. As Reagan later admitted, it was a mistake to delay the bulk of his tax cuts to 1983. But when the tax cuts finally freed the economy, that year it grew at 7 percent, and at least 4 percent annually until President George H.W. Bush’s “Read my lips! New taxes!” tax increase of 1991 sparked a recession.

Donald Trump’s program would be similar. But we’re talking here about Hillary, who wants more taxes and regulations. Assuming Republicans still control the House, she’s unlikely to impose higher taxes; but taxes won’t go lower, either. And President Obama has shown how executive orders can greatly increase the intrusive powers of the regulatory state. She has regretted promising, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” And she supposedly believes those jobs will be replaced by “green jobs.” But that just means more Solyndras.

2) Massive California budget deficits. If the Fed increases interest rates, that finally would end its Zero Interest Rate disaster, now more than eight years long, which has devastated middle-class savings. But raising interest rates would tank the places money has been forced to go: the stock market and real estate.

That would shrink California tax collections, which rely abnormally on income, capital gains and (despite Proposition 13) property taxes. The state’s $7 billion “rainy day fund” would dry up fast. Soon we’d be back to $20 billion-plus deficits.

3) Split-roll tax increase? The deficits would spark calls for yet another tax increase to keep the state spending spree going. If Democrats again grab 2/3 of both houses of the Legislature, they could pass tax increases themselves, with no Republican input. But moderate Democrats likely would torpedo that. And Gov. Jerry Brown probably would say it should be put before voters for the June or November 2018 ballots; probably the latter because of greater (more liberal) turnout.

With the Proposition 55 income tax increase (or “extension”) likely having passed in 2016, it would be tough to push income tax rates yet higher, say to 15 percent from an already staggering 13.3 percent. Moreover, the declining revenues would be due to a drop-off in income and cap gains taxes, so increasing taxes on lower revenues wouldn’t help that much.

So the push would be for a split-roll tax on property, with Prop. 13’s protections remaining for homes. A higher tax would be levied on commercial property, possibly with an exemption for apartments. As we’ve seen whenever this proposal has come up, it would be a battle royale between the public-employee unions and such anti-tax groups as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who probably would win.

Here are a couple of “positive” things for California:

4) More defense spending and jobs. Hillary heavily pushed for the bombing in 1999 of Serbia over Kosovo and in 2011 of Libya. She also supported the Iraq and Afghan wars; as well as other wars in Ukraine, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, etc. And every chance she gets she attacks Russian President Vladimir Putin and says Donald Trump is his puppet. Wars are the greatest way to boost defense spending because you have to replace the depleted materiel.

Moreover, a President Hillary would have stronger political and economic ties to California than any president since Reagan and, before him, Richard Nixon of Yorba Linda. As did LBJ in the 1960s, the Bushes moved a great deal of defense spending to Texas. So did Vice President Dick Cheney, the former chief of Houston-based Halliburton. Assuming she doesn’t get into a nuclear tiff with Putin and get us all killed, that will mean more defense industry jobs for Californians. Also more jobs in the U.S. Army’s Mortuary Affairs service.

5) A more level playing field with other states. Enthused AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, “[A]ction taken by California to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will have far-reaching effects by encouraging other states, the federal government, and other countries to act.” That hasn’t happened. Instead, AB 32 and similar legislation have pushed businesses and jobs to other states.

But if Hillary is elected, she’ll impose AB32 and similar legislation nationally. Likewise, although she won’t be able to raise the national minimum wage to the $15 an hour California soon will have, she certainly will be able to convince Republicans to boost it from the current $7.25 – say, to $12. Who cares if a higher minimum wage destroys the jobs of poor people? That will mean more jobs for Hillary-supporting social workers.

But the greater relative damage to other states from her policies would mean fewer jobs leaving California for those states. Although jobs still would depart for more sensible countries.

My suggestions to ride out the tough years of a Hillary administration: Get a job in the defense industry or as a social worker. And if she keeps up her belligerence toward Russia, dig a bomb shelter.

Veteran California columnist John Seiler now is a freelance writer. His email:writejohnseiler@gmail.com

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, John Seiler, Ronald Reagan

The Legacy on Nancy Reagan

March 7, 2016 By Joel Fox 1 Comment

Nancy Reagan said her job was to protect her husband, President Ronald Reagan, and she carried out that role to the smallest detail, as I discovered firsthand.

In 2002, when I was writing a book, the Legend of Proposition 13, I did research at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. I wanted to look at Reagan’s radio commentaries, voiced before he became president, that discussed taxes. They were written in his own hand on sheets of yellow legal pads and were part of a special collection. Working through the Reagans’ close aide, Joanne Drake, who served Nancy Reagan until her passing yesterday, I sought approval for handling the original documents. I was told approval to do so had to come directly from Nancy Reagan. I had to wait a while, but finally I was told, yes, I could see the documents.

Nancy Reagan continued to protect President Reagan’s legacy and build the Reagan Library as not only a shrine to the Reagan presidency, but also a place to keep involved in political and policy matters by hosting numerous events, many of which she attended.

The last time I saw Mrs. Reagan was at the library at one such event. A few years ago, I accompanied my friend, renowned civil rights attorney, Connie Rice, to the Reagan Library as she planned to listen to and meet with her cousin, Condoleezza Rice, scheduled to speak at the library. Before the former Secretary of State was introduced, while the program’s moderator spoke on stage, Mrs. Reagan, despite being frail, sat in the center of the front row of the audience flanked by the Rice cousins.

The library, which she worked so hard to develop, will remain a legacy of Nancy Reagan as a center of policy and political matters, as well as a tribute to her husband.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Joel Fox, Nancy Reagan, Ronald Reagan

California and the GOP Debate

August 7, 2015 By Joel Fox 6 Comments

Looking for California in the GOP debate presented some challenges even with one candidate who has tentative ties to the Golden State and the state’s Democratic governor who tried to put himself into the debate via a letter to the candidates on climate change.

There was only one Californian (sort of) in the field of 17 — Carly Fiorina who made her name as CEO of Hewlett-Packard and was handily defeated by Barbara Boxer for the California U.S. Senate seat in 2010. She now lives in Virginia.

She did fairly well in the first debate, many pundits declaring her the winner. And it appeared that former Texas governor Rick Perry has Fiorina lined up for the Secretary of State job if he becomes president. In criticizing the Iran nuclear deal Perry said, “I’d rather have Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation rather than (Secretary of State) John Kerry.”

Major California companies Google and Apple also made it into the first debate with Fiorina saying they should cooperate with the government on investigations that might prevent terrorism.

Apparently, Jerry Brown sent his letter to the wrong recipients for the main debate. California’s Democratic governor tried to work his way into the debate when he sent a letter asking GOP candidates how they would address climate change. He should have sent his letter to the Fox News Channel debate moderators. They didn’t bother to engage the candidates on climate change in the debate featuring the 10 leading candidates.

There was a reference to climate change in the first debate held for candidates in positions 11 to 17 in the polls. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham responded that if he debated presumptive Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton on climate change she would argue cap-and-trade that would ruin the economy while he would focus on energy independence and a clean environment. Cap-and-trade is a key strategy in Brown’s camapign on climate change.

Immigration was a big issue at the debate although nothing specific to California. However, the situation on sanctuary cities was raised in both the earlier and later debates. The sanctuary cities issue gained headlines after the shooting death in San Francisco of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been deported many times but still came back. Candidates from Jeb Bush to Ted Cruz, to Bobby Jindal said they would eliminate federal funds to sanctuary cities.

There are a number of presidential candidates working with individuals with strong California ties. To name a few: Jeff Miller is campaign manager for Rick Perry, Mike Murphy is a strategist for Jeb Bush and Todd Harris is communication director for Marco Rubio.

While California didn’t have a big role in the debates one of her favorite sons was mentioned frequently –Ronald Reagan. And that will carry over with the next Republican debate scheduled for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley September 16.

Originally published of Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Bobby Jindal, carly fiorina, Fox and Hounds Daily, Fox News, GOP, GOP Debate, Immigration, Kate Steinle, Ronald Reagan, Ted Cruz

Why Jerry Brown Isn’t Going Away Anytime Soon

February 25, 2015 By James V. Lacy 1 Comment

Two weeks after his landslide reelection, four-term California Gov. Jerry Brown invited lobbyists to a private fundraising reception at a swanky Capitol restaurant.

The move was odd because, at 76 years old, the termed-out chief executive of the nation’s largest state is too old for the final political promotion to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

If the White House isn’t in the cards, what’s Brown up to?

With nearly $24 million stashed away in campaign accounts, and reports showing he spent just $5.9 million on his re-election campaign—even less than GOP opponent Neel Kashkari’s $7.1 million—there’s no reason for Brown to bother with the chicken dinner fundraising circuit if he’s planning to end his career.

Whatever his intentions, one thing is certain: Moonbeam isn’t planning to ride off into the sunset.

Jerry Brown for President — Fourth Time’s the Charm

On Inauguration Day 2017, Jerry Brown will be older than Ronald Reagan on his last day in office. Those state-level campaign funds can’t be transferred (easily) to a federal campaign. And Brown definitively ruled out another presidential run last year, saying “time is kind of running out on that.”

It doesn’t make sense for Brown to seek the White House a fourth time, and that’s exactly why he’ll do it. The Zen politician has prided himself on going against the grain.

Last year, he cruised to reelection with a non-campaign. A nation weary of the prospects of Bush vs. Clinton 2.0 could embrace Jerry’s low-key style. The toll-free hotline from his 1992 presidential bid remains active. Moreover, a presidential run gives Brown the chance to define his legacy by telling the country about his “California comeback.”

Brown was the top performing Democrat in the 2014 midterm elections. He earned a million more votes than former Gov. Charlie Crist’s losing effort in Florida and doubled the vote total of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s win in the Empire State. Raw vote totals are skewed by California’s size. Brown also had the widest margin of victory by percentages making him the strongest elected Democrat in the country.

Political Leverage: Ballot Measures in 2016

Brown’s been around California politics long enough to know that the real battles are fought over ballot measures. The signature threshold for qualifying ballot measures is determined by turnout in the previous gubernatorial election. Consequently, last year’s record low turnout will result in a record number of ballot measures in 2016.

Brown has said that he’s looking to use his surplus cash for “some major ballot measure battle that I can’t even conceive of.” While some of his largess will go towards 2016 ballot measures, it won’t consume his entire war chest. This election, Brown made big business and big labor pony up most of the $13.9 million for Propositions 1 and 2. Why would he spend his own money this time around?

The Legacy Project

Jesse Unruh has an institute. John Burton has a building. What’s Jerry Brown going to buy to ensure his name lives on?

When California’s ill-conceived high-speed rail plan runs off track, Brown will be without a legacy project. Not to worry, his millions of dollars in campaign funds can save his place in history with a sizable endowment to a university for an institute better than Unruh’s and a building bigger than Burton’s.

The Democratic Kingmaker

Brown could dispose of his campaign cash with campaign contributions to legislative candidates and the California Democratic Party. Then again, Brown has been stingier than your coupon-clipping grandma who still uses her passbook savings account.

Brown was, in the words of the Sacramento Bee, “nowhere to be seen in most down-ticket races.” In the June primary, the governor didn’t intercede on behalf of Steve Glazer, a faithful political adviser who was pummeled by the state’s labor unions in a Democratic legislative primary. In the general election, Brown cut an ad for one competitive State Senate candidate, but couldn’t manage to get the candidate’s name right.

Brown the Philanthropist

As mayor of Oakland, Brown founded two charter schools, the Oakland School for the Arts and the Oakland Military Institute. In the past decade, he’s raised tens of millions of dollars for the education initiatives. After the November election, an unnamed Brown aide told the San Francisco Chronicle, “My bet is whatever is leftover would go to those two projects…They are near and dear to his heart.”

Attorney James V. Lacy, a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s “Varney and Company,” is author of “Taxifornia: Liberal’s Laboratory to Bankrupt America.”

This article was originally published by The Blaze

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Election, James V. Lacy, Jerry Brown, President, Ronald Reagan