GOP(ayloa) addressed in Total Buzz

Marty Wiskol has a pretty good post in the OC Register’s Total Buzz with more detail and a greater explanation of the story behind the story. Jubal/Matt Cunningham has a post about it on OC Blog, but it omits this paragraph from Marty (and you do have to go hunting for it even on the Register’s site.)

I think this was simply one of Chairman Scott Baugh’s efforts at innovation that went a little haywire. He’s trying to turn the party from a relatively small group of GOP devotees into a larger group of dedicated, active loyalists. On one hand, he launched the Local Elected Officials Association in an effort to bring more city council and school board members into the fold. On the other hand, he launched a local endorsement process to let officials know the party was behind them. However, it came out looking like those two hands are holding each other. Then you have a couple other controversial endorsements — or non-endorsements — which doesn’t help. And we haven’t even gotten to the business of possible endorsements for the Capistrano Unified School District, which will be on tonight’s agenda before the GOP’s endorsement committee.
– Martin Wisckol

The problem here is percepton is often reality and regardless of the facts in the case, it still looks like endorsements are for sale. And that Matt, is the jist of it.

Baugh’s charge that the LA Times “lied” in reporting the story is just inaccurate and the Right wing noise machine took their appeal to their buddies at the Register to clarify. Marty did a good job reporting this story, but you really had to strain to hear the other shoe drop.

Since this second paragraph in the Buzz requires some click through, I thought it was worthwhile for you to see it.

  8 comments for “GOP(ayloa) addressed in Total Buzz

  1. Anonymous
    September 12, 2006 at 3:41 pm

    But Martin failed to ask (or the GOP failed to answer) one simple question:
    Will all incumbent local elected officials continue to be eligible for early endorsement, or will this be a perk reserved for those who pay to join this new organization?
    As for the “they don’t need the money” argument – it doesn’t mean anything. Since when has lack of need kept any organization from collecting extra cash?

  2. September 12, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    The “they don’t need the money” argument isn’t an argument at all. We all know that they don’t need the money.

    This is just pay for play…a great way for the good old boys to keep any free-thinkers from stealing their seats.

  3. Jubal
    September 12, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    Dan:

    The reason I didn’t include that paragraph is I try to avoid reprinting entire posts from other blogs. I want to give my readers a reason to visit the blog from which the post originated. So I told readers they could read the entire post on Total Buzz.

    The odl saw that perception is reality aside, the perception in this case is wrong. The LA Times article was conufsed and muddled itself, leavig a reader unsure whether or not a $200 payment is required to obtain the OC GOP endorsement. it isn’t, but the LAT article failed to make even that simple point clear to the reader.

  4. September 12, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    This is just pay for play…

    I guess you’re going to continue to make that assertion, regrdless of the evidence.

    a great way for the good old boys to keep any free-thinkers from stealing their seats.

    What does that even mean?

  5. Anonymous
    September 12, 2006 at 5:02 pm

    But Jubal,
    Will a $200 membership fee be required in the future to be eligible for (though, admittedly, not guarantee) an EARLY endorsement?

    That’s the simple question that nobody seems willing to answer.

  6. September 12, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    Matt –
    I wasn’t confused by the LA Times article. The reported that there’s a club Republicans have to join in order to be eligible for early endorsements. And that paying doesn’t guarantee a canddiate gets the endorsement. It also reported that some GOP canddiates felt it was a shakedown. What is there to confuse?

    I read your site and you certainly have no problem devoting lots of space to bashing the left or really promoting a certain candidate; but the editing standard for reporting news that is less than favorable to the right is a tad different.

    In my case, I felt Marty’s second paragraph was more relevant than the one you posted. As Dan Qualye might say, Potatoe, PoTATtoe

  7. September 12, 2006 at 5:31 pm

    Matt –
    I found Marty’s secnd paragraph more relevent.

    And I do read your site; you devote far more space to lefty bashing than being critical of certain GOP positions (your criticism of the Governor is the exception, not the rule).

    I also found the LA Times piece pretty clear. And Mr. Baugh, by accusing the Times of an outright lie, was wrong. The Times reported that the GOP has a club, with dues of $200. To get an early endorsement, you have to join. But being a member doesn’t guarantee endorsement as not being a member doesn’t exclude a candidate eitehr (if we are to believe Mr. Baugh’s own post on your site). The Times reported some GOP candidates felt this was a shakedown. Where’s the confusion and where’s the lie? Its a story that makes your party look bad. That’s all it is.

  8. September 12, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    apologis for the double posting to Matt; I got an error message when I posted and it looked like the rpely went into the Ether….

Comments are closed.