[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

The Three Conservateers

by: Robert Cruickshank

Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:30:00 AM PDT


The personal sniping between the three Republican candidates for the US Senate nomination obscures a very important truth - they are ALL very right-wing candidates who share the same extremist views on the important issues of the day. Yesterday's televised debate made that quite clear:

In their only on-camera debate, the three Republicans seeking to replace U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer did their best to run to the right, as each supported Arizona's new immigration law and opposed California's restriction on greenhouse gas emissions.

On major topics, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and former Rep. Tom Campbell were often in alignment Thursday. They all, for example, said hedge-fund managers shouldn't pay higher tax rates.

Sure, they had a minor disagreement on whether people on the no-fly list should be allowed to buy guns (DeVore and Fiorina think yes, Campbell no), but that shouldn't mask the fact that they are all basically singing from the same right-wing song sheet.

After all, they each believe we shouldn't be taxing hedge fund managers more money. In case you needed any further evidence that today's Republican Party is nothing more than the organized protection racket for the wealthy.

Tom Campbell still wants people to believe he's some sort of moderate, but that's nonsense. Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign (where I work as Public Policy Director), put it well in a front page article in today's SF Chronicle:

"Tom Campbell pretends he's a mainstream moderate," said Rick Jacobs, founder of the liberal online activism hub the Courage Campaign. "But any time he gets a chance to pander to the Tea Party base of his party, he's done it."

In fact, all three candidates have said they'd vote to repeal the recent health care reform bill, and would likely support a reckless scaling back of federal spending, the primary reason why there has been job growth and the hint of economic recovery over these last few months.

What Californians see in the Republican field of candidates is three more right-wing candidates who don't share our values. And these candidates aren't shy about letting us know it. Let's not by shy in letting them know what we think of their right-wing extremism.

Robert Cruickshank :: The Three Conservateers
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Give credit (0.00 / 0)
Tom Campbell opposed Prop 8 when he knew he would be running in a statewide Republican primary.  He understood that support of gay marriage was going to bring the right wing out and in fact they have run effective ads against him on that issue.  

I think it takes courage to stand up in front of a bunch of right wingers and tell them you support gay marriage, just as it takes courage to stand up and say that you support abortion rights.

Republicans who are willing to do that are very, very rare and deserve kudos.  Tom Campbell might not be a moderate (I'll leave it to others to define that term), but he is NOT your standard right-wing Republican.


Really? (0.00 / 0)
Then why does he oppose the Prop 8 lawsuit in federal court? He claims to be a con law scholar and a supporter of same-sex marriage but can't tell a massive and egregious violation of the equal protection clause when he sees one? Come on.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
Actually, that's really disturbing (0.00 / 0)
The position Campbell seems to be articulating is that basic rights are not a proper subject for the the courts, but only for plebiscite.  He might be on the right side of the plebiscite, but he's on the wrong side of the basic concept of protecting individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.*

* Please note that due to the imprecision of the language, some people seem to think that the concept of minorities needing protection from the majority within an electoral system means that an electoral minority should be able to control what the electoral majority does within the realm of ordinary legislation.  The Senate filibuster and the ridiculous 2/3 rule is NOT what is intended by cautions against the tyranny of the majority.  In other news, philosophical materialists do not like consumer goods any more than anyone else (and often much less).


[ Parent ]
Campbell is wrong on the suit (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you regarding the equal protection aspects of same sex marriage and disagree with Campbell. He has said that equal protection can be achieved through other means (civil unions) but that it is the right of voters to define marriage.  

My overall point was that he took a position (hardly the first time) that is not just slightly off the mainstream of the GOP but HUGELY off the mainstream. I just think he ought to get credit for that.


[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox