DeVore’s US Senate announcement: the Liberal Translation

You know, there’s plain old English and then there’s Republican-speak, a twisted and bending way of saying something you truly believe is true even though reality is warped when words are compared to facts.

As a Liberal public service, we’ve translated State Rep. Chuck DeVore’s announcement for his run for Senate against Barbara Boxer.  Our comments are in italics.  It’s all after the jump.

I am a candidate for the United States Senate in 2010. California deserves strong, active, and conservative representation in Washington, D.C. By 2010, an entire generation of Californians will have been born and grown to voting age, never having known a principled conservative — to say nothing of a Republican — representing them in the United States Senate. In 2010, we will change that.

Good luck with that; based on the most recently completed election, young Americans went for Democrats.Voters 18-24 went Democratic 68-30 while voters 24-30 voted Democratic 60-30; most young voters associated Conservative Republicanism with George W. Bush, a president Chuck was loyal to and supported for all eight years.

I am a candidate for the United States Senate because I love America and its founding principles.  My politics and my public career testify to my belief in those principles.

  • I believe our natural rights are inherent to our humanity, not a grant from government.

Unless you’re gay; then you’re entitled to second-class citizen status. Because of course, if you permit gay marriage, then polygamists have a right to multiple wives and fathers will marry daughters and mothers will marry sons to avoid paying estate taxes – all ideas argued by Rep. DeVore on this blog.

  • I believe the role of government is limited to securing our rights from external danger and internal lawlessness. 

Not a peep from Chuck about domestic surveillance, routing executive branch email through RNC servers, and then there’s that torture thing.

  • I believe that when government exceeds this mandate, our liberty is at risk.  As George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Whatever.

  • I believe that for too long now, our elected representatives have softly encouraged us to give up our independence to government.  Year after year, we see government’s responsibilities grow while our personal liberty shrinks. 

 You can thank the imperial presidency of George W. Bush for this one.

This terrible progression of state power at the expense of our natural liberties is not purely the fault of Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans who bear blame as well — as we have seen here in California, and in Washington, D.C., over the past decade.

But I won’t name names of Republicans; how this is the fault of Democrats is beyond me.

But only the Republicans can turn the tide.

Excuse me?

  • Only the Republicans have the bedrock foundation of dedication to a proper Constitutional order.

Is Dick Cheney executive branch or legislature branch? I’d challenge Chuck to argue why he thinks Democrats lack this bedrock foundation. The only bedrock foundation the Republicans have is the inability to ever change their minds about anything, no matter what new information appears.

  • Only the Republicans have a record of fiscal responsibility.

Ohh, sorry, some soda shot out of my nose when I read that. Fiscal responsibility in Washington by Republicans?  Right. Which is why we went from budget surpluses to massive budget deficits. “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” – Dick Cheney. I will take Bill Clinton’s record of fiscal responsibility over Ronald Reagan’s and both Bushes anyday.  It’s too bad we’re not trapped in Clinton’s economy.

  • Only the Republicans have a sound commitment to national defense.

 This is plain malarkey. I think Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy did a pretty good job defending the nation. Bill Clinton kept us at peace. Remember, national defense is a little more than fighting foreign enemies, but also protecting citizens from things like Hurricane Katrina. The Republicans also have a sound commitment to ignoring veterans, nearly cut their combat pay until Dems shamed them into not doing it, and have heavily relied on mercenaries that are more expensive than our own soldiers. These is no coherent defense policy currently.

  • Only the Republicans have an understanding of what business and entrepreneurs need to create jobs for working Californians.

News report: With the economy deteriorating rapidly, the nation’s employers shed 533,000 jobs in November, the 11th consecutive monthly decline, the government reported Friday morning, and the unemployment rate rose to 6.7 percent.

The decline, the largest one-month loss since December 1974, was fresh evidence that the economic contraction accelerated in November, promising to make the current recession, already 12 months old, the longest since the Great Depression.

  • And only the Republicans have a conservative tradition that calls us back — however far we have strayed — however tattered our banner — to the principles that made California the greatest state in the Union.

 Right, like divisive politics over gay rights, environmental issues, education, immigration reform, tax benefits to luxury yacht owners over school kids.

I am proud to say that I have been true to those principles and that conservative tradition over my 22 years of public service.

It’s a long way from here to the general election in 24 months. We have a primary to win, and then a fight against Barbara Boxer and her far-left friends that will demand everything we’ve got.

Be honest; anyone who isn’t a far right conservative isn’t far left; Boxer has lots of support from moderates.

I am confident we will win that fight. I am confident that when Californians have a real choice between me and Barbara Boxer — it will be an easy choice for them.

Boxer. That was easy.

  • You see, I want Californians to keep their hard-earned money.

 All of it? How do you propose to do that?

  • I want to lower fuel and energy costs by producing more of America’s oil, and building modern, safe and reliable nuclear power plants.

 America has 3 percent of the world’s oil and uses 25 percent of it; where are you going to store nuclear waste and will you be shipping it by truck and rail through our neighorhoods? No alternative energy plans. No solar, no wind, no hydrogen. No electrical hybrid technology.

  • I want to rein in runaway Federal spending.

Too bad you were too quiet about it when Republicans spent money like teenage boys with whiskey and car keys.

  • I want to bring a conservative leadership to Washington, D.C., that actually works.

 It’s never worked. Ever. And you’d be one of 100 senators and in the minority.

And what does Barbara Boxer want?

 How would you know?

  • She wants more of the same from Washington, D.C.

 I don’t think want wants more Republican values

  • She wants to take more of your money for her own plans.

 This is a lie.

  • She wants to forfeit your children’s future to enlarge an over $6 trillion national debt.

 Another lie. And which party is responsible for this $6 trillion debt. G.O.P.

  • She has no plan to make good on an unsustainable $86 trillion entitlements system that puts our children’s future at risk.

 She can’t put or kids at anymore risk than George W. Bush did.

  15 comments for “DeVore’s US Senate announcement: the Liberal Translation

  1. December 5, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    We ARE rooting for Chuck in the Primary though, aren’t we? I know I am. It’s a long dry spell till the comedy of Obama vs. Palin in 2012.

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    December 6, 2008 at 10:31 am

    No, we’re not. We need exceptional people to be Senator and Republicans need an exceptional candidate. His record in the Assembly is unremarkable and he practices divisive politics. He’s exactly what Republicans don’t need.

  3. December 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    I sort of agree, except we both know the only exceptional people today’s California GOP will consider for Governor are the exceptionally goofy.

    And I HOPE they don’t pick Arnold (which they won’t as they consider him a sellout liberal RINO) because HE could conceivably beat Barbara.

  4. December 6, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    (I meant senator of course, if anyone wants to correct that…)

  5. Paul
    December 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Just an observation,
    But whats with the non-posting of any subjects for two days? jefferson lost his seat in Louisianna to a Republican Vietnamese Candiate for Congress. I would think that this would garner a post on Lib OC seeing as how its not van Tran to the first Viet to be elected to Congress.

  6. Dan Chmielewski
    December 8, 2008 at 8:35 am

    Paul –
    we’re all volunteers; we post when we can. Its also the holidays and its a pretty busy time of the year.

  7. Steve Perez
    December 8, 2008 at 9:16 am

    My home internet is out Paul, when it’s back on later this week, I assure you I’ll have more people hating me in no time!

  8. December 8, 2008 at 9:23 am

    Steve,

    One Paul – Multiple Personalities.

  9. Paul
    December 8, 2008 at 9:49 am

    chris,
    what?
    Dan, you missed the tongue on cheek in my post. I was being sarcastic. A quality lost with no tone in text posts.
    Steve, LOL.

  10. December 8, 2008 at 9:57 am

    It has become clear that the “liberals” here spend the weekends partying with Jubal.

  11. Dan Chmielewski
    December 8, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    As usual Vern, you’re talking ot of your ass.

    But I will say I have a lot more respect for Matt than I do for Art.

    Paul — sarcasm is lost in text all of the time. Sorry.

  12. December 8, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    Whatever… Let’s see if I can fix your ITALICS problem.

  13. Steve Perez
    December 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Hey Vern,
    I almost went to your piano fundraiser, I’m really kicking myself for missing the opportunity to see what your like when your not commenting snarky comments on blogs.

  14. December 8, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    :-) One of these days, young Esteban…

  15. Steve Perez
    December 8, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Actually Vern, sorry to rein on your linguistic cultural parade there, but the Spanish equivalent of Steve is Esteif or Esteve, not Esteban, which is the equilvilent of Steven. Although, perhaps if Gustavo comes by he can set us both straight, but still, ugh, I don’t like being called Esteban… brings back to many memories of destitute Mexican ranches…

Comments are closed.