Thoughts On Brewer's Hapless Campaign
One local activist, getting a laugh out of Marilyn Brewer's list of endorsements, sent me over to her Web site. The list is funny. OK, she scored big with John McCain's support. It's not secret, however, that McCain has moved to the left on domestic issues, often supporting Democratic ideas and causes rather than Republican ones. Beyond that, there aren't too many local officials behind her, beyond Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher, the liberal supporter of eminent domain, corporate welfare, Smart Growth, etc. Former Assemblyman Ken Maddox backed her, but it's no surprise he is still bitter over his loss to John Campbell in the GOP primary. Maddox lost largely because he became a shill for the unions. Speaking of unions, they are on the Brewer bandwagon, along with pro-abortion groups, feminist groups, etc. The list of endorsements is quite small. It it were not double-spaced, it would not top one page. You'll find the New Majority, the Republican group formed to moderate the party, has supported John Campbell. I suppose that's because the group is run by adults, who recognize that Campbell will do the best job championing the causes they care about -- business issues. It also shows what a strong candidate Campbell is: he has credibility among moderates and conservatives.
I'd rather have a Democrat in Congress than Brewer. At least then the Republicans could fight back against the candidate. It does the party no good to have such a big tent that those within the tent undermine or oppose most of their values and policy positions.
It's ironic that the lefty Republicans always claim to want to expand the party's appeal. They often cite diversity and attracting minorities as reasons to vote for them. But these type of Republicans have zero appeal in working-class and minority communities. They represent the liberal elite. The eminent domain issue is instructive here. John Campbell, as a real conservative, has been active in trying to stop its abuse. Even some Democrats, such as Lou Correa and Tom Umberg, are against eminent domain, recognizing that it gives wealthy people more power over poorer people. The liberal Republicans tend to love eminent domain, because they represent the status quo business establishment that doesn't like to be bothered by those pesky homeowners who value their neighborhoods.
Liberal Republicans also are pro-abortion, which alienates them from many minorities, who tend to be pro-life. They often are hostile to religion. They want to limit growth, and micromanage development through Smart Growth and various environmental policies, which benefits the wealthy over the poor. These retrictions make it harder for, say, the Latino working class to afford to buy homes.
Liberal Republicans claim to be taking the GOP back from the far-right, by sticking to economics and avoiding the social issues. But I rarely hear conservatives talk about abortion, while the liberal Republicans are fixated on it. When push comes to shove, the liberals are squishy on budget and tax issues, and are on the wrong side when it comes to property rights issues. They claim to be principled, yet note how Brewer and other RINOs are always pretending to be conservatives, afraid to let on that their philosophy is closer to the left than the right. How is that for principle?
Posted by Steven Greenhut -- sgreenhut@ocregister.com at 12:30 PM