Quote from: Solar on March 03, 2016, 09:27:31 AM
Our demise began when the leftists Gerrymandered the voting districts. At that point they had the GOP by the balls.
Despite the party politics, solid Conservatives come out of Ca, more than any other state.

Even Arnold Schwarzenegger complained about them. He said the districts looked like they were drawn with an etch-a-sketch. 

Quote from: quiller on March 03, 2016, 06:21:42 AM
"B-1 Bob" Dornan was the last California conservative. Get over it. 

Unfortunately, he was also on the take. At the time of his election defeat vs Loretta Sanchez, I wondered why he did not contest a result where he lost by less than 1000 votes in an election where many times that number of votes demonstrably and provably were cast by illegal aliens or other non-citizen voters. It wasn't long before we got the answer.

Which addresses a point I'm always trying to make on this forum -- policy alone should never be adequate justification to earn our vote. When you compromise and elect ethically challenged people, or make excuses for them (*cough* Chris Christie *cough*) bad things happen.

Quote from: Cali Contrarian on March 03, 2016, 11:07:23 AM
Unfortunately, he was also on the take. At the time of his election defeat vs Loretta Sanchez, I wondered why he did not contest a result where he lost by less than 1000 votes in an election where many times that number of votes demonstrably and provably were cast by illegal aliens or other non-citizen voters. It wasn't long before we got the answer.

Which addresses a point I'm always trying to make on this forum -- policy alone should never be adequate justification to earn our vote. When you compromise and elect ethically challenged people, or make excuses for them (*cough* Chris Christie *cough*) bad things happen.

Got a few links there to support the notion "he was on the take"...? Compared to, say, any number of RINO blasphemers?

What you WONDER is not the same thing as anything Dornan actually said. He may simply have chosen to retire...with great benefits.

I'm more concerned with what he put into the national record in those speeches (the name for which escapes me so I say after-hours). I'd love to get MP3 downloads of the audio on those: you can hear him ripping off pieces of liberal hide, 4 inches wide.

The more I hear Cruz, the more I like him.  He is a great candidate with conservative values with which I agree. 

Someone called into Rush stating that everyone talks about that Trump voters are angry, Trump is getting votes from people that are angry with Washington. The caller said that actually, Trump voters arent angry but that Trump voters are scared. People that vote for Trump are scared of losing their investments, losing their retirement, losing their money in one way or another. The caller then said that Ted Cruz is who is garnering the angry voters who are mad at Washington. People that are angry that the majority of people they voted into office in 2010 and 2014 mid term elections are not doing what they promised, and Cruz is someone who is.

Thoughts? Does anyone agree that Trump voters are actually scared, not angry, and that Cruz voters are the angry ones?

Quote from: quiller on March 03, 2016, 12:09:39 PM
Got a few links there to support the notion "he was on the take"...? Compared to, say, any number of RINO blasphemers?

What you WONDER is not the same thing as anything Dornan actually said. He may simply have chosen to retire...with great benefits.

I'm more concerned with what he put into the national record in those speeches (the name for which escapes me so I say after-hours). I'd love to get MP3 downloads of the audio on those: you can hear him ripping off pieces of liberal hide, 4 inches wide.

I did a cursory search for you, and to my surprise, I see nothing particularly relevant to the issue I was referring to.

It was well documented at the time that he was under investigation by the FBI for bribery related to defense contract lobbyists. I know he was never convicted, but I drew the conclusion that there was something to the allegations, simply deducing from his actions in the aftermath of the election he lost. It certainly had the appearance of a back room deal -- that he not make waves about having his seat stolen and the investigation would be quietly shelved.

As I said, I cannot find reference to anything establishing an admission of guilt, but I cannot find reference to anything regarding the investigation either, which I know took place. This stuff was over 20 years ago.

I still believe I'm essentially right, but I'll admit at this point I can't prove the case. I admired the politics of the man probably as much as you, and I remember being dismayed and feeling betrayed at his unwillingness to take a stand on his own behalf. For instance, he never filed a lawsuit to dispute the election result, which was clearly fraudulent. There has to be a reason for that. As a result, we see the ascension of a political figure (Sanchez) who might very well have been the next corrupt D Senator from California, if not the fact that it appears she will be undone by an even more corrupt, better connected, and more PC-friendly (Black still trumps Latino) politician in Kamala Harris.

So, technically, if I can't really prove the case, I'll hold my condemnation of Dornan in abeyance. He was a great advocate for conservative views, regardless.

*SNORK*