IMPORTANT: Registered Republicans in CA Can Get Rid of Sen. Boxer NOW! (Brown 2.0)

[dannno]

Anybody in the mood for another Brown, but instead of Brown we actually have a Constitutional, non-interventionist candidate??? That's what I mean by Brown 2.0, because Chuck DeVore is the real deal and we can all help out here.


Don't believe me? Pay attention. In the final month before the election Brown came up over 20 points to defeat Coakley.


An independent poll by Rasmussen found that Chuck DeVore is just 6 points behind Barbara Boxer!! The Dems really are in trouble EVERYWHERE


All he needs is 10,000 signatures of Registered Republicans in CA to get on the ballot, and of course campaign contributions.


So first thing's first. The following link contains instructions how how to print out the petition and where to turn them in at:


http://chuckdevore.com/petition/


Per the instructions, be sure to let the campaign know about how many signatures you were able to get so we can get this part wrapped up and onto bigger and better stuff.




If you don't live in CA, checkout his website and consider contributing to help defeat Barbara Boxer!!

http://chuckdevore.com/issues/

[JK/SEA]

Here's a video that should inspire.

YouTube - America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0bh77k2Wdk)

[purplechoe]

Wasn't this guy on Freedomwatch before? I'll have to look into him before I could actually donate any $ to him...

First thing I look at now is foreign policy, that's an easy way to spot a true pro-liberty candidate:

http://chuckdevore.com/issues/


Chuck has deep experience on defense and foreign policy matters

Chuck DeVore, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army retired Reserve, served as a civilian White House appointee in the Pentagon during the Reagan Administration where he was a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs. Before his election in 2004, Chuck was vice president of research for an aerospace and defense firm and has firsthand knowledge about America’s hi-tech weapons systems. As a member of the California State Assembly, Chuck has served on the Veterans Affairs Committee and has been named Legislator of the Year by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and the State Commanders' Veterans Council.

While a strong supporter of a robust and modern volunteer military, Chuck has been a consistent skeptic of direct military intervention since the 1980s, preferring instead to encourage those who want freedom and democracy overseas with more indirect methods, if possible. Chuck knows that we neither have enough people or treasure to be a global policeman for decades.

Regarding our current conflicts, we must be define and then achieve victory. If we are not prepared to defeat our enemies, then we should not sacrifice our men and women in uniform to a lost cause.

YouTube - Chuck DeVore on foreign policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCJq3GhMfMc)


hmmm... I'm undecided.

[klamath]

If I didn't live so far from people I would be all over this. Good job Danno.

[dannno]

hmmm... I'm undecided.


While a strong supporter of a robust and modern volunteer military, Chuck has been a consistent skeptic of direct military intervention since the 1980s, preferring instead to encourage those who want freedom and democracy overseas with more indirect methods, if possible. Chuck knows that we neither have enough people or treasure to be a global policeman for decades.

That's really not bad in my book, especially in a race like this (trying to defeat Boxer).

He's really strong on a lot of the other issues as well and is definitely an adherer to the Constitution and believes that the #1 job of government is to protect individual liberty. That's one of the first things he mentions on his website.

[klamath]

Wasn't this guy on Freedomwatch before? I'll have to look into him before I could actually donate any $ to him...

First thing I look at now is foreign policy, that's an easy way to spot a true pro-liberty candidate:

http://chuckdevore.com/issues/



YouTube - Chuck DeVore on foreign policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCJq3GhMfMc)


hmmm... I'm undecided.

Here is an article written by Devore. Not quite RP but one huge step in the right direction.
DeVORE: Right should fashion own foreign policy
Just bashing Obama's not enough

By Chuck DeVore

OPINION/ANALYSIS:

During the Bush administration, conservative discussion of America's war aims and defense policy took a back seat to defending the president against the left's vitriolic assaults. Conservatives must resist the urge to attack the current administration's defense policies in kind. Instead, we should now reflect on what America's defense and foreign policies should be, rather than simply offer a sharp critique of the present.

The Soviet Union's 1991 collapse ended the Cold War. It also ended the conservative consensus on defense and foreign policy.

President George H.W. Bush's foreign-affairs team was largely defined by a Nixonian realpolitik ethic, far more concerned with stability and great-power balance, than with the power of liberty and human rights.

Conservatives spent the Clinton administration years largely in opposition to his frequent overseas deployments. Many conservatives also saw Mr. Clinton's China policy as a thoughtless inertial carryover of the Nixon strategy to bolster China as a Cold War counterweight to the Soviet Union.

George W. Bush came to power in 2001 calling for an end to Clinton's open-ended nation-building commitments. The response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks changed that, with the administration soon employing Wilsonian rhetoric extolling the universalism of democratic ideals.

So, where does conservative defense policy in the age of Obama begin?

We need to start from a common understanding that national power is dependent on three basic factors: political, economic and military.

America has had the world's largest economy for more than 100 years. This economic strength sustains our military power. In 2010, U.S. defense spending will total about 4.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), up from a low of 3 percent 10 years ago, but still less than the 6 percent of GDP at the peak of the Reagan buildup in 1986.

Maintaining defense spending at current levels will be difficult, as federal entitlement spending and debt service have put pressure on budget writers.

Looking at the percentage of GDP applied to defense is useful, but it is just as important to see how we are spending our money. Reagan-era defense budgets invested 45 percent in modernization while day-to-day operations consumed 50 percent. Today's wartime budget invests 30 percent in modernization while military operations consume 65 percent. This is the result of the decision to spend $1.08 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while lacking the political will to spend as much on defense as we did 25 years ago.

As defense research-and-development and capital spending go, so goes the U.S. defense industry. Talented young engineers are now turning elsewhere for work. Rebuilding our defense industrial base will be more difficult than finding new recruits, and, if our armed forces don't have the right tools, defending the nation and winning wars will be difficult indeed.

As a result of culture and geography, Mr. Obama's Afghan surge will likely fall short of its objectives while spending $40 billion per year. Employing conventional forces in pursuit of terrorists and guerrilla forces is always an expensive proposition. Attempting to build nations on soil not yet fertile to the concepts of democracy and national unity is even more problematic. Neither is needed to produce the result we want: deadly consequences for attacking Americans. This can be done with special forces, drones and better human intelligence.

At its peak, the Soviet Union produced a GDP that was only about half (55 percent) what the U.S. produced. The People's Republic of China passed that mark in 2008. Yet, in spite of this and threats from Iran, Yemen, the Horn of Africa and North Korea, our attention remains fixed on the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.

With new weapons-systems procurements taking many years, we need to take full measure of the world around us and prepare for the next war so we can prevent it or, failing that, end it on our terms.

Because America is, as Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan said, "The last, best hope," we owe it to our posterity to get defense- and foreign-policy right. Our Founders understood that threats to our Constitution come from within and without. That's why our elected officials and military officers swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Our national security policies must reflect this oath, being humble enough not to try force the world into our image, but at the same time understanding, as Reagan did, liberty's compelling hold on the human spirit.

Conservatives must lead a vigorous debate on defense and foreign policy, moving beyond mere criticism of Mr. Obama, whose national security policies offer much to criticize.

• Chuck DeVore, a California state assemblyman, was a special assistant for foreign affairs in the Pentagon under President Reagan. He is a lieutenant colonel in military intelligence, U.S. Army Reserve, and was an aerospace-industry executive before election to the Legislature in 2004. He also is running in this year's U.S. Senate Republican primary in California.

[Stary Hickory]

Fair enough looks good, I can't help as I don't live there, but if he has a shot I'll help him with money.

[purplechoe]

He sounds like a reasonable individual, its just hard for me to get really motivated about a candidate unless I see that he gets it (the liberty message). So far, the 2 people that I see who have heard and truelly understood the message are Kokesh & Medina. I'll have to read that article klamath posted later to get a better understanding of where he's coming from.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I was about to start making phone calls for Schiff untill that foreign policy issue was brought up. What a shock to the system that was. To me it's not about winning or loosing, it's about getting the message out. Maybe it's better to loose this time and loose on principal but eventually being vindicated because no matter how popular or unpopular your message has remained consistent, ala Ron Paul.

I think that Peter has just sunk his campaign with that comment. It's a huge reason why his last money bomb kind of fizzled. A lot of us in the liberty movement love his message on the economy but that message becomes inconsistent when your foreign policy is at odds with your domestic one. He's either pandering to the neocons or really belives in what he said. Either way, my enthusiasm for him has whittered.

I'm a lot more weary about throwing my support to any candidate now.

[tpreitzel]

Thank you, Lord, for shaking the tree of rotten apples. ;) Here's another chance to replace the rotten apple, Senator "don't call me ma'am" Boxer. :)

[dannno]

Bump

[Liberty Star]

Boxer does need to be kicked out, but who is this Brown 2.0 guy? Is he a neocon like Brown 1.0, what's his stances on foreign spending policy anf foreign occupations?

[Promontorium]

Well I suppose here's a clear difference between an Objectivist, and a Libertarian.

Ayn Rand wasn't afraid of war. "I will not initiate the use of force" still has that implication that force is possible. Hell, she supported invading the middle east to take back the oil fields.

I'm an Objectivist. Not a pacifist. I like Chuck DeVore's take on the issue.

[dannno]

Boxer does need to be kicked out, but who is this Brown 2.0 guy? Is he a neocon like Brown 1.0, what's his stances on foreign spending policy anf foreign occupations?

Checkout his site, as I said in the OP, he's a non-interventionist/no nation building! (that's kinda what I meant by 2.0 ;))

VERY Constitutionalist and even against the war on drugs.

[Promontorium]

As for some of his other issues; bleh :(

I'd consider voting for him if he's the best choice, but he's not my kind of guy from the looks of it. Here's a couple:

-DeVore and most Republican-types seem to support building a giant trough and channelling all the water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta into Los Angeles.

Me- Killing one of the most biologically/ecologically unique places in the west (certainly California has a lot of them) for the sake of the sprawl of L.A. seems like a pointless endeavor. They need to look into desalinization plants. If this makes me an environmentalist, then a tree hugger am I.

-DeVore is against gay marriage.

Me- I don't think the government has any right to "marry" anyone. But since they started this business, I'm completely sick of how the federal government, and to a lesser extent state and local, has treated ****-sexuals. I could rant about this for awhile, but in short, I disagree with DeVore.

-DeVore supports a "robust and modern military".

Me- I know I just said I like his tinge of war, that ever present warning. I still do. It's why I own a gun. It's not in hopes for a fight, it's in case. But I really detest the "robust" military idea. We don't need troops across the planet. We need a force capable of effecting national defense.

[dannno]

As for some of his other issues; bleh :(


Are you sure? Nearly everything is identical to Ron Paul, he is a Constitutional Conservative/libertarian.




I'd consider voting for him if he's the best choice, but he's not my kind of guy from the looks of it. Here's a couple:

-DeVore and most Republican-types seem to support building a giant trough and channelling all the water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta into Los Angeles.

Me- Killing one of the most biologically unique places in the west (certainly California has a lot of them) for the sake of the sprawl of L.A. seems like a pointless endeavor. They need to look into desalinization plants. If this makes me an environmentalist, then a tree hugger am I.

Is this really conjecture?? Can you provide proof, please?!?!?

And if true, what does that mean on the Federal level? Anything?




-DeVore is against gay marriage.

Me- I don't think the government has any right to "marry" anyone. But since they started this business, I'm completely sick of how the federal government, and to a lesser extent state and local, has treated ****-sexuals. I could rant about this for awhile, but in short, I disagree with DeVore.


Do you have proof of this? Do you know what it would mean for him personally on a Federal level? I don't get any info from his website that he is "against gay marriage".




-DeVore supports a "robust and modern military".

Me- I know I just said I like his tinge of war, that ever present warning. I still do. It's why I own a gun. It's not in hopes for a fight, it's in case. But I really detest the "robust" military idea. We don't need troops across the planet. We need a force capable of effecting national defense.

Did you read the rest of his stance?!?! He is AGAINST our foreign empire, troops across the planet and FOR a force capable of effecting national DEFENSE. He seems to agree with you completely on this one :p



I really want to emphasize The Constitution here, because this guy is educated on it and for it.

[Bergie Bergeron]

He is against gay marriage. (http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1424)

[dannno]

He is against gay marriage. (http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1424)

How does this apply at to him at the Federal level?

[Dieseler]

Hell, I didn't even read it but if Klamath and Danno agree on him then I think there must be something to the guy and I should, brb.

[Bergie Bergeron]

How does this apply at to him at the Federal level?

Someone will have to ask him that.

[jmdrake]

Well Ron Paul stated he would have voted for DOMA, introduced a bill to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing challenges to DOMA, and said if he was in the state legislature he would have supported a state version of a similar bill to keep Texas state judges from overturning bans on gay marriage. But because of one statement where Ron Paul said he supports the "right to contract" as an answer to a question about gay marriage, some people assume that he does despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

My point? Why make gay marriage a litmus test for candidates we support? He never made that a centerpiece of his campaign and we shouldn't make it a litmus test for CFL candidates. If someone supports gay marriage it shouldn't matter. If someone opposes gay marriage it shouldn't matter. Marriage is an issue to be decided by the states anyway.

[KAYA]

Here's a video that should inspire.

YouTube - America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0bh77k2Wdk)

That was awesome!

[dannno]

Why make gay marriage a litmus test for candidates we support? :confused:

:confused:

[Bergie Bergeron]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=226655

[Promontorium]

Are you sure? Nearly everything is identical to Ron Paul, he is a Constitutional Conservative/libertarian.

Is this really conjecture?? Can you provide proof, please?!?!?

And if true, what does that mean on the Federal level? Anything?

Do you have proof of this? Do you know what it would mean for him personally on a Federal level? I don't get any info from his website that he is "against gay marriage".

Did you read the rest of his stance?!?! He is AGAINST our foreign empire, troops across the planet and FOR a force capable of effecting national DEFENSE. He seems to agree with you completely on this one :p

I really want to emphasize The Constitution here, because this guy is educated on it and for it.

Every thing I said about him I got from his website.

You want me to come up with lots of other sources because you have trouble reading his official stances? I must first ask you to get more educated on the issues because it is not my goal to first teach you, then persuade you. I was simply saying why I disagree.

And to accuse me of focusing on one issue, because I mentioned several, and said there were more, seems a bit dishonest of you. I'm not focusing on any particular issue, he is across the board a regular Republican. Not impressing me.


If you don't know about the proposed peripheral canal, you certainly aren't alone, but DeVore does know about it.

from http://www.chuckdevore.com/issues/

"We need clean water for our families, for our farmers, and for our future economic growth. Unfortunately, Sen. Barbara Boxer and her radical environmental allies see control of water as a way to shut down California’s growth. They’ll use any means necessary to prevent added water storage and conveyance to the places it’s needed for farming and to sustain our communities."


DeVore calls the drought "man made" which is to say, if we tap into more resources, we can temporarily alleviate water shortages. But in reality no one is dying of dehydration, and this drought is because it hasn't been raining, not because of Barbara Boxer. I'd love to blame Barbara Boxer for droughts too, and call her a witch, and all that, but it's not the 1500s anymore.

What DeVore is supporting is building a channel that will provide all the water southern California needs for their golf courses in the desert. It's a cause Sean Hannity personally came to my neck of the woods to support.

Here's Sean Hannity himself.

YouTube - Sean Hannity's The Valley Hope Forgot Part 1: Actor Paul Rodriguez (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GhLeToXLvw&feature=related)


What they don't mention is the proponents of the channel don't have any plans for local farmers, in fact, local farmers don't need a peripheral canal. Sean Hannity's doomsday speaking is absolutely absurd. This valley is not dry. This valley is flooding.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has very vocally supported the peripheral canal, and has promised to try to help the legislation through.


One website providing an opposing opinion is this:
http://www.calsport.org/7-24-09.htm
and this:
http://www.restorethedelta.org/resources_canal.php


Chuck DeVore is against Gay Marriage
Source: http://www.chuckdevore.com/issues/

He certainly uses bland words, but they are the classic words of anti-gay marriage.

"Regarding family values, the first rule of government should be to "do no harm." Unfortunately, liberal activist lawmakers, such as Barbara Boxer, as well as liberal judges, are constantly trying to remake society in their vision by using the power of government. If elected U.S. Senator I know my biggest impact on values will be in the votes I make to confirm federal judges. In a prospective judge, I’ll look for those who understand that the role of government is to secure our "unalienable" rights as set forth in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence and that the Judicial Branch's role is not to legislate from the bench."

Translation: DeVore promises to support judges that are against gay marriage, and are pro-life.

Is that federal enough for you?

But if his words aren't clear enough, here is the next line:

"I’m proud to have been one of 18 lawmakers who received a perfect pro-family score from the Capitol Resource Family Impact for voting in 2007-08. Capitol Resource Family Impact runs California's only pro-family state lawmaker ranking."


The organization he is proud to have been rated "perfect" from is an anti-gay marriage, pro life activist group.

Their website is here: http://www.capitolresource.org/
Good quote from those who think DeVore is "perfect"

"Last fall, Proposition 8 opponents claimed that refining marriage would not impact our classrooms. A quick review of this curriculum shows that they are indeed targeting students. These lessons are from San Francisco, but marriage opponents are not content to stop there." http://www.capitolresource.org/news.php?news_id=56&start=0&category_id=2&parent_id=2&arcyear=&arcmonth=

DID YOU READ THAT? "MARRIAGE OPPONENTS" They literally consider the idea of gay marriage to be "anti-marriage".

I do not agree with this, and I have clearly shown this is an agenda for DeVore.

If he were like Ron Paul, he might say something like "I disagree with gay marriage, but hell if I'm going to lobby against it in government." NO instead he's promising to vote for judges specifically on their stance of "family values".


DeVore Wants a Robust Military
Source: http://www.chuckdevore.com/issues/

"While a strong supporter of a robust and modern volunteer military"

I already mentioned, in fact it was the first thing I wrote, that I agreed with his idea on use of military. But I still disagree with a "robust" military. I would hope for a word like "trim".

How is this a federal issue? I don't know, I'll check the constitution.
Is this baseless conjecture? Maybe, but his website is where I got it from.



Nothing I wrote was in any way meant to misconstrue his positions. I based what I typed from his website's stated positions, and from my opinion of those positions.

He is not an individualist. He is a standard issue Republican. I might end up voting for him given no other choice. But I challenge you to show me where he is in any way philosophically in line with a "liberty movement candidate".

[Fr3shjive]

I'll reluctantly vote for him here in CA but only because we(c4l) havent put any of our own candidates up for election.

This guy claims that he's a fiscal conservative but wants a robust military. Any time I hear that I automatically assume he's a neo-con. I'll give him a chance because Boxer really hasnt done anything for us so we might as well give somebody else a try.

[romacox]

Thank you Dano. I will forward this information to My Brother who lives in CA. Thanks for the information. Please keep us posted .

Reports are coming in that the new guys to the House are making changes in the right direction. I don't think they all get the full message, but they are far better than the establishment.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Poll: Tom Campbell Leads Republican Senate Primary In California; GOPers All Trail Boxer
Eric Kleefeld | January 21, 2010, 10:11AMAll


3 Republicans in the state of California are trailing Barbara Boxer by 20 points. The state is a

Liberal everything.

Latest article/POLL: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/poll-tom-campbell-leads-republican-senate-primary-in-california-gopers-all-trail-boxer.php#more

The numbers: Campbell 30%, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina 25%, and DeVore 6%, with 39% undecided.


Back in October, Fiorina had 21% and DeVore 20%, before Campbell entered the race.

All three Republicans trail Boxer in the general election matches.

Boxer leads Campbell by 48%-38%

Boxer leads Fiorina by 50%-35%

Boxer leads DeVore by 51%-34%.

Campbell, a socially liberal and economically libertarian Republican, previously served in Congress from 1989-1993, then narrowly lost the Republican primary for Senate to run against Barbara Boxer in an open-seat race. He returned to Congress in a 1995 special election, then became the Republican nominee for Senate in 2000 against Dianne Feinstein, losing in a landslide.


http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=ca3867fa-ff23-4ad9-946d-f1a6a5a263b2&d=0

[georgiaboy]

DeVore aside, I like the idea of us co-opting the 'Brown' meme with 'Brown 2.0'! Nice way to co-opt the co-opters.

[klamath]

He is a step above Schiff in my book, and I actually have a vote on this one. Cambell is a bailout boy. However if Florina or Campbell get it I will sit on my hands and let Boxer go back to washington to torment you all.:D

[dannno]

I'm not focusing on any particular issue, he is across the board a regular Republican. Not impressing me.



I have no idea where you get this idea from since he is the exact opposite of regular Republicans.... I mean, I am against the state having involvement in marriage, but if they are going to do it they should marry gay people as well. But as jmdrake said, this is not a good issue for a litmus test. It's not that I don't care about gay people, it's that they already have the ability to become legal partners and have all the same rights as those who are married, just without the title.

As far as the military, Ron Paul and all Constitutional Republicans believe in a strong national defense. The big difference is that we realize that occupying foreign countries and empire building hurts our national defense. Chuck DeVore realizes this and it is on his webpage.


One thing I found that I don't like:



"Studies have shown there is impairment with marijuana use," DeVore said. "People can get paranoid, can lose some of their initiative to work, and we don't live in some idealized libertarian society where every person is responsible completely to himself. We live in a society where the cost of your poor decisions are borne by your fellow taxpayers."



Chuck, if you're reading this, I just received a Master's Degree with a 4.0 GPA thanks to medical cannabis. It does not "impair" you like you think it does (in fact I like to use the word "enhance"). Society has a lot more burdens from the substance being illegal than if it were legal. Making it illegal increases criminal behavior. Making it illegal funds all of the criminals from you-know-where, when we could keep the profits in the hands of honest entrepreneurs. Your decision.


Tom Campbell, the new opponent, is FOR medical marijuana. He was also pro-bailout. Dammit. Why can't people who like freedom understand it better?