This week the California Republican Party elects new leadership. Jim Brulte is going to be the leader of the party. His first act was to bring in Karl Rove. He then is quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as saying:
“Our party understands we don’t have to agree on 100 percent of the issues 100 percent of the time to qualify as a good Republican,” he said. “The idea that we can grow our party by division and subtraction is ridiculous. We can only grow our party through addition and multiplication. … Anyone who wants to join our party is welcome in our party.”
This may sound like a necessary statement given that the Republican party is now only representing 29% of California voters. However, marketing doesn’t work this way. Few people have a desire to join or identify with a political party because they like the name. People are motivated by fighting injustice, a cause, and better laws for a better future. The American economy is a disaster kept afloat by massive non-sustainable government spending. The American social fabric is shredded by any measure. Injustice and legitimate causes abound. Saying that we don’t need to agree 100% of the time might even be true, but highlighting it destroys the Republican brand even further. Had Jim Brulte instead said we can’t fight every injustice but we are going to focus on one or two items – then okay.
Today even though I’m a life-long Republican, I have no real idea what the party stands for. As a result, the Democrats can easily define the Republican Party as racist, homophobic, only for the uber-wealthy, etc. The man who is probably the most responsible for leading the Republican Party down the path on non-relevance is none other than Karl Rove, Jim Brulte’s first choice to set the agenda moving forward. The Chronicle said that Jim Brulte picked Karl Rove to make a point to the conservatives in the party that the party was going to be pragmatic. Okay, we got the point Jim – now go find your own volunteers because no one wants another liberal like Arnold leading the party.
Do any of these “pragmatic” politicians, or self-servatives, give one rip about building a party or a message? Was our party stronger because Republican Arnold won twice? Under Arnold, California’s finances remained a disaster, business flight started, and regulation skyrocketed, all due to the policies of this Republican pragmatic choice. The real message appears to be “The California Republican Party: the other big government/plantation party” or “The CRP: Rural Democrats.”
Prediction: The California Republican Party is going no where under Jim Brulte and will continue to decay.
Now, these pragmatic politicians point to decisive issues like “Gay marriage” as a reason the party loses. Do we really want to have two 30 year old married males adopting 12 year old boys because they are now “married?” According to a major peer reviewed study out of the Univ. of Texas, nearly 1/3 of children growing up households with at least one gay parent are sexually abused or raped. According to this study, support for Gay marriage is tantamount to support for extreme child abuse. I wish those were not the statistics. I wish that children growing up with a gay parent did great. There are a few tiny studies about gay activists showing their kids are doing well. But when we look at the non-activist population, the sexual abuse statistics are shocking. Are we going to only pass a law that says highly motivated rich gays can marry and adopt? Are we supposed to “shut up” in this face of this injustice so a few “pragmatic Republicans” can push for laws that statistics tells us are going to result in the sexual abuse and the repetitive sodomy of tens of thousand of California’s children? If that is you stand Jim, then you can stand by yourself because you simply will never get many of us to go along with child abuse and child rape. This doesn’t mean heterosexual households are perfect. The same study showed the rate of abuse and rape about 5x lower, but still sickeningly high. The professor was attacked by the left and investigated by the University of Texas but eventually cleared of all accusations – how dare anyone publish evidence that doesn’t support leftist ideology! Jim you need to understand the evil you are up against and if your answer is to accommodate it, then you will be consumed by it.
Unfortunately, the Texas study has plenty of anecdotal evidence to support it. How has putting even a few priests (studies show between 15 to 58% are gay) who are sexually-repressed gay men and young boys in close proximity worked out for the Catholic Church? Are we suggesting that it worked so well for the Church, that now we want to put sexually-active gay men and young boys in permanent close proximity and then role that situation out in our State with near zero oversight? There are very solid reasons why people oppose gay men marrying and presumably adopting – and it isn’t homophobia. Gays like everyone need love. I oppose it for the same reasons I oppose putting bars next to half-way houses or having politicians control social security money – statistically, bad things are going to happen. If new studies show differently, then we should look at the data. Until then, please don’t risk the joyful innocent lives of tens of thousands California’s children on the alter of political correctness in exchange for winning a few seats. Well I mean, presumably winning seats because lately Karl is more like Karl “the big billion loser” Rove and his pragmatic strategy isn’t delivering results.