CA Sen: Former State Senator Richard Mountjoy to challenge Feinstein

[Adlai Stevenson]

"In the case of incest, there's always adoption," a former State Senator and Monrovia lawyer Richard Mountjoy has announced that he will challenge California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein in her bid for re-election.  "I'm in the race...No turning back." 

A self-avowed conservative Republican; Mountjoy holds right-wing positions not only on abortion; he questioned whether there were ever cases in which the procedure needed to be performed to protect the mother's life.  On immigration, he said: ""I don't think you give special benefits or a special place in line to those who have flaunted the laws of the state".  Despite his variance with Bush on the latter issues, he supports the President wholeheartedly on Iraq: "He is exactly on target in Iraq".

The California GOP does now have an experienced candidate for nomination, however, several in the party are reportedly worried about Mountjoy's perceived extremism in the liberal climate of the Golden State.  With Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger facing a difficult election campaign this year, the party may well not want him to share the ticket with a candidate who differs sharply with the liberal Republican on the issues.  The Republican primary will take place a little more than four months from now.

Feinstein, 73, a popular incumbent since she won a special election in 1992 over similarly conservative little-known Senator appointed to fill a vacancy, won a narrow election in her own right in Republican 1994 over Congressman Mike Huffington, 47%-45%.  In 2000, she was re-elected easily winning 56%-37% over the current State Director of Finance Tom Campbell.  She is popular in the state and has already raised $6.9 in her bid for a fourth term.  She is seen as a universally moderate Democrat, who voted against Bill Clinton's Healthcare Package in 1994 but her new challenger attacked her as a liberal who has: ""totally taken the positions of the left." 

http://www.oursenate.com/

In Democratic California in Democratic 2006, will Feinstein break 60% of the vote against a reactionary Republican?

[Frodo]

I see the Republicans have found their sacrificial lamb......   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 2004, the major party candidates were definitely more liberal, and Boxer still won by 20 points, and got the most votes ever for a candidate in a non-national election in US history. San Diego county voted for Bush and Boxer, LOL.

[Flying Dog]

"In the case of incest, there's always adoption,"


Now that is conservative!!!

[nini2287]

In Democratic California in Democratic 2006, will Feinstein break 70% of the vote against a reactionary Republican?

[phk]

If Boxer won by 20 points, Feinstein shouldn't get less than 35.

[Virginian87]

Actually Feinstein is somewhat palatable, compared to Boxer.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually Feinstein is somewhat palatable, compared to Boxer.

Why? Because she voted for a war for no reason?

[Joe Republic]

I see the Republicans have found their sacrificial lamb......   

That's truly bizarre.  I was literally just about to post the very same thing, word for word.  LOL

[Alcon]

I see the Republicans have found their sacrificial lamb......   

That's truly bizarre.  I was literally just about to post the very same thing, word for word.  LOL

That's even creepier, because I also was going to (although with fewer periods on the end).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In Democratic California in Democratic 2006, will Feinstein break 70% of the vote against a reactionary Republican?

I doubt it. There are a lot of very right-wing Republicans in California, plus there are 4 minor parties with ballot status. Usually 3 or 4 of them run a candidate.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

It is a shame that the CA Republican Party is not doing more to build in-roads against statewide giants like Feinstein.  Remember, Sen. John Tower built inroads for the Texas GOP when he fought LBJ and lost in a landslide, only to come back and win the seat months later.

[Adlai Stevenson]

That is true and its historically interesting.  I know were drifting off-topic here but the 1960 race must have been a shock for LBJ in Texas; he won by 58%-41%, Tower certainly improved on the 1954 Republican performance. 

However, I think the fundamental difference between Texas in 1960/1961 and California in 2006 is that Texas was trending Republican as part of the Southern pattern; Eisenhower had carried it twice and Nixon only narrowly lost it due to LBJ's presence on the ticket.  California appears to be more or less staying put politically, the demographic trend is not overnight going to elect a conservative Republican when the state has been represented since 1992 by two Democratic women who are pro-choice, for gun control and generally politically of the left. 

Also, I can't understand your point: do you expect Feinstein to die or something?  Mountjoy is retired himself and is only running because the GOP needs a candidate.  Its extremely unlikely he will return at some later election. 

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Also, I can't understand your point: do you expect Feinstein to die or something?  Mountjoy is retired himself and is only running because the GOP needs a candidate.  Its extremely unlikely he will return at some later election. 

My point is that the CA GOP need to stop putting up candidates who are obviously "losers" in high profile races.  It was my point, that as part of a larger strategy to build momentum, they should front some kind of serious candidates in these high profile races even if the odds of victory in the CURRENT election is unlikely. 

California has titled liberal statewide for nearly two decades because the Republicans quit trying.  Schwarzenneger is not saving the party statewide, and fronting clowns for the U.S. Senate is not going to help either.  The GOP in California has consigned itself to minority party status because they really do not wish to put up the effort to become the majority, or even a strong minority.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I remember correctly, the only reason Tower won was because then the Texas Democratic party was split between liberal and conservative wings. Typically the primaries would have a liberal vs. conservative, and whoever won was considered a shoo-in in the general election. In that case, a conservative Democrat won the primary, and thus many on the liberal wing led a campaign to vote for Tower in the general, with the theory being they could easily beat him later. Obviously that didn't work, but his initial victory was always a bit of a fluke.

The problem the California GOP faces with getting strong candidates to run later is the state is too big. A very good portion of the state is very conservative, around 40%, and they elect very conservative Republicans in those areas. But those conservatives can never win statewide. Furthermore the state is gerrymandered to ensure that basically every district in the legilsature and congressional delegation is safe for one party (every district that voted for Kerry is held by a Democrat, and every district that voted for Bush by a Republican), meaning the Republicans have a guaranteed number of seats, but permanent minority status. These seats will keep electing conservatives naturally, which means you can't end up with a moderate Republican who'd play well in Democrat areas and capable of winning statewide rising to prominence. The GOP lucked out with Arnold, but looks like he's toast now. Once Arnold falls, they'll be back permanently screwed statewide.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

If I remember correctly, the only reason Tower won was because then the Texas Democratic party was split between liberal and conservative wings. Typically the primaries would have a liberal vs. conservative, and whoever won was considered a shoo-in in the general election. In that case, a conservative Democrat won the primary, and thus many on the liberal wing led a campaign to vote for Tower in the general, with the theory being they could easily beat him later. Obviously that didn't work, but his initial victory was always a bit of a fluke.

If I recall, it was the other way around, as conservative Democrat Coke Stevens endorsed Tower giving him inroads with the Democratic voters.  I think it is a mistake to say Tower's victory was a fluke, as his election came as a result of years of work, planning, and campaigning.  He basically built the Texas GOP where there had effctively been none before.  That is my outlook on that. 

The CA GOP is in bad shape, but I do not buy the hype that a conservative cannot win statewide.  Tom McClintock has ran two statewide campaigns, coming within a hair of victory the second time around, and he very well could become Lt. Governor this November.  McClintock is the California Conservative's greatest hope for some level of high profile success.