Sep 232012
 

Jim Nielsen is beating a drum – if you hammer him for his record, you’re a liar. Click here to see our post from last year lambasting Jim Nielsen for his role in decimating the CAGOP Platform.

Unfortunately, for gentleman Jim, he has been in office too long to get away with anything. Actually, he has been on both sides of so many issues he is using that to double-speak any of his critics. Case and point – Periphrial Canal – He opposed Jerry Brown’s Canal, but supported George Deukmejian’s. He voted to put Prop 14 on the ballot, but then opposed Prop 14 once on the ballot. He called members of the legislature to go up on Prop 1A – the largest tax increase in state history, then voted against it on the floor of the Assembly.

Nielsen was also on both sides of the California Republican Party Platform debate. But, what he did as a member of the drafting committee was so egregious that he will not recover politically from the exposure.

In the drafting Committee – the minutes show that Jim Nielsen was out in front, leading the charge for the Platform for California’s Future. This platform had the pro-life, prop-8, 2nd amendment, and a whole bunch of other Republican issues stripped out of it.

It was so watered down that it even had the ethics section deleted! Click here for a full analysis between the previous CRP platform and the one that Jim Nielsen advocated for.

Click here to see the minutes from the Platform Drafting Committee MeetingNielsen was the first to speak towards its’ adoption and he made the motion to adopt said platform (Called the Platform for California’s Future). Conservative leaders Mike Spence and Craig DeLuz led the opposition.

Note as well that there were amendments proposed to bring parts of the “Pruner Platform” in to the Jim Nielsen Platform. They were all torpedoed.

The amendment to add paragraphs 3-8 of page 8 was adding Pro-Life language to the Nielsen platform. It was voted down. The amdnement to add paragraph 2 of page 5 was adding Prop-8 to the Nielsen platform. It was voted down.

I was called the day of the Drafting committee meeting by Steve Frank and I also spoke to Craig DeLuz. They both told me that Jim Nielsen was leading the debate for the watered-down platform the entire meeting. Mike Spence later confirmed the same story and he added that David Stafford Reade (who was expelled from CRA for 10 years for committing fraud) was there with Jim Nielsen.

You see, when legislative staff come forward to tell me that Jim Nielsen is making calls to try and recruit people to support the largest tax increase in state history – it gets my attention. When these same staffers tell me that Nielsen played let’s-make-a-deal on tossing three dams in Siskiyou County as part of Arnold’s water bond (which could go on the ballot at any time, still)… it gets my attention. Then when something like the Platform fight features Jim Nielsen it all makes sense.

There are times when Jim Nielsen’s own tendencies put him in a place where calling his critics liars just simply can not obfuscate the truth.

Jim Nielsen calls himself a Conservative because he is not. He attempted to destroy the CAGOP Platform – largely due to this blog criticizing him  – Jim Nielsen reversed himself and actually voted against the Platform he had moved to adopt and voted for the “Pruner Platform” in the entire Platform Committee.

Add this to the list of Jim Nielsen’s flip-flops – but this one is clearly an effort to save face after getting exposed.

P.S. – remember that $133k that Charles Munger invested in Nielsen? Charles Munger spent a reputed $250k on the effort to gut the CRP Platform. David Stafford Reade was paid to run the proxy drill in the north state for Munger. The $133k from Munger certainly looks like Jim Nielsen’s reward for services rendered. If Nielsen really supported a Conservative CAGOP Platform would Charles Munger have dropped $133k in to him?

AD-05 Update: CRA Officer Ben Lopez from SoCal writes op-ed Attacking Pugno and Misses Badly

 5th Assembly District Race, Andy Pugno, Ben Lopez, Craig DeLuz  Comments Off on AD-05 Update: CRA Officer Ben Lopez from SoCal writes op-ed Attacking Pugno and Misses Badly
Jun 072010
 

Folks – I try to stay out of local races for anything south of the Kern County Line. There is a reason – California might as well be three worlds… Bay Area, Southern California and the rest of the state. I live in the rest of the state.

Ben Lopez wrote an Op-Ed on behalf of Craig DeLuz (who I have endorsed) and bascially accused Andy Pugno of negative campaigning.

Mr. Lopez – I wanted to help you out with a few things:

1. Fact – Andy Pugno has been the front-runner and a target forthe others running.

2. Fact -the establishment tried to recruit Steve Miklos, Susan Peters, Sheriff McGuiness and a couple others I can’t remember – but none of them stepped up.

3. Fact – The establishment came forward with support of Andy Pugno only after their attempts to recruit another candidate failed. Then Roger Niello and Dave Cox endorsed Andy just before filing closed.

4. It is misleading to imply that anyone called Craig DeLuz establisment – since the same Niello/Cox have frequently been at odds with him. Andy knows this, everyone knows this.

5. It is 100% accurate to call Craig DeLuz a grassroots leader – that’s why I endorsed him and gave him $250. Andy Pugno is a leader from the grassroots that has made statewide impact and has 15 times the money of all five others combined.

6. Allow me to point out where the “establishment” money for Andy Pugno came from – 7,000+ donors. 1 Pac.

Andy Pugno is the general counsel for Prop 8 – he is a bona-fide conservative in the same mold of values as Craig Deluz.

This is why I stood up for Andy Pugno when the CRA convened an endorsing convention.

Let me quote the previous post:

If Andy Pugno, as conservative as he is, could get the “liberal establishment” to come kicking and screaming on to his endorsement list… it means he is a force to be reckoned with.

They tried to recruit someone else and Andy Pugno made them yield – Steve Miklos, Susan Peters, Sheriff McGuinness, none answered the bell.

And in a rare combination, the Establishment and the CRA almost endorsed the same candidate – and this time the establishment came to the right to meet us.

Andy Pugno is the only candidate I have ever seen pull that off.

Andy Pugno has done the work – he’s one of us and he will earn the office.

Mar 262010
 

I gave Craig DeLuz for Assembly $250. I gave Craig Money for his City Council Campaign, School Board Campaign and for the Support the Platform Central Committee campaign in the past.

I have been a friend of Craig DeLuz for 8 years.

I endorsed Craig early.

I believe in Craig DeLuz’ values, his story and what he has to offer.

I did not meet Andy Pugno until June of last year for the first time.

So why did I stand up for Andy Pugno at the CRA endorsing convention last night?

Is Andy more Conservative? No. Andy and Craig espouse the same stances on issues.

Does Andy have a superior record of service to the GOP? No. Both Andy and Craig can cite a laundry list of accomplishments and activism inside the GOP.

Did Andy have big Special Interest Money? Only one donation from a PAC.

While I sat at the CRA Convention I heard a recitation from the three Candidates that attended – Craig, Suzanne Jones and Andy Pugno.

Craig – who is a fantastic public speaker delivered a presentation about who he is and what he has done.

Suzanne – who is fairly new to being a candidate brought cue cards with her and implored us with the message of “What about me”?

Andy – who is not a fantastic public speaker started with some self-depricating humor (referencing veiled references by the previous two to him) and proceeded to spend a minute explaining why he was not going to take his whole five minutes.

So it was not even a question of who the best speaker was or the “Package” as it were.

Andy Pugno is a middle-aged white guy. He is a lawyer that has gone to battle for Conservative Causes for years – while DeLuz was in the trenches on the ground…

All across the board – similar.

Differences?

Race.
Public speaking ability.
Money.

Andy Pugno has out-raised everyone in the entire state. He has 10-12 times the cash that Craig DeLuz has.

This was not an easy decision – Craig has wanted this for at least 4 years that I know of. Craig is a dear friend – but he could not get the critical mass.

In the end, it became a matter of the CRA and the CRA supporting a proven Conservative with the critical mass to win.

If Andy Pugno, as conservative as he is, could get the “liberal establishment” to come kicking and screaming on to his endorsement list… it means he is a force to be reckoned with.

They tried to recruit someone else and Andy Pugno made them yield – Steve Miklos, Susan Peters, Sheriff McGuinness, none answered the bell.

And in a rare combination, the Establishment and the CRA almost endorsed the same candidate – and this time the establishment came to the right to meet us.

Andy Pugno is the only candidate I have ever seen pull that off.

AD05 Update – Andy Pugno Rounds Out Endorsement List – DeLuz Has Not Filed

 5th Assembly District Race, Andy Pugno  Comments Off on AD05 Update – Andy Pugno Rounds Out Endorsement List – DeLuz Has Not Filed
Mar 092010
 

Andy Pugno rolled out his endorsement by Roger Niello – last week while I was on the road to the State CRA Convention.

Andy Pugno’s most prominent Republican opponent, Craig DeLuz was at the CRA convention all weekend. I don’t know what was in Buena Park for an Assembly Campaign 400 miles away…

The Niello Endorsement basically closes all open territory in the Sacramento Area around Andy, in addition – While Senator Dave Cox is the Godfather, Roger Niello is the heir apparent to that title.

I’d expect that those two endorsements will open up money and even more endorsements for Pugno.

Pugno has about $280K in the Bank. DeLuz – has not filed his 12/31/2009 campaign finance report.

UPDATE – Spoke with Craig on the phone. He indicated that the failure to file was due to a mix-up with the transition between paid staff and doing the report himself. Craig indicated that it was his responsibility to do so and will be or did file the report today.

Why? Is Craig hiding a lack of money? I don’t get it – I figured that big money was going to flow Craig’s way sooner or later.

Is Craig not going to file his candidate papers? UPDATE – Craig says he is filing and will be on the ballot.

My concern for Craig is that he is going to get sanctioned (fined) by the Secretary of State – which would be embarrassing.

In other news – based on phone calls placed to associates of mine – there will be five customers in the Republican Primary.

Oh, and there appear to be four customers in the Democrat Primary.

Nuts.

Sign up to receive RightOnDaily updates delivered to your inbox.