Peter Behr was a Yale-educated lawyer who represented the North Bay in the state Senate from 1970 to 1978. Among the Legislature’s most passionate advocates for the environment, Behr, who died in 1997, led the campaign to create the Point Reyes National Seashore, and he authored legislation to protect the state’s wild and scenic rivers.

William T. Bagley is a Berkeley-educated lawyer (and valedictorian of his senior class) who represented the North Bay in the state Assembly from 1960 to 1974. As a lawmaker, Bagley championed fair housing, open government and civil rights legislation.

There’s one other thing you should know about the legislative careers of Behr and Bagley: Both were Republicans.

As leaders of the California Republican Party last week tried to explain the decline of GOP fortunes, what was most surprising is that they seemed surprised.

Having gone out of their way to antagonize large numbers of women, minorities, public employees, teachers, young people, environmentalists, low-income people, gay people and anyone with a gay friend or family member, one wonders: What did they think was going to happen?

Some of my best friends are middle-aged (or older) white men, but if you think they are all you need to build a successful political movement, you will be disappointed.

Even longtime and loyal Republicans have drifted away from a party that seems increasingly determined to marginalize itself.

Once upon a time, voters in Sonoma County routinely voted for Republicans — Behr and Bagley, state Sen. Jim Nielsen, Assemblyman Don Sebastiani, Assemblywoman Bev Hansen, the late Assemblyman Bill Filante, Rep. Don Clausen, Rep. Frank Riggs.

Those days seem long ago and far away. Today, there are more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans in Sonoma County, and Republicans barely outnumber voters who decline to state a party preference.

It’s true that the electorate changed. Growth in the 1970s and 1980s brought new people, and most of them were Democrats. A rural county once dominated by real estate and farm interests would be slowly transformed by new arrivals who envisioned a larger role for government.

They brought with them a different agenda. They cared about social services and women’s issues and measures to protect the environment. (Ironically, the people who came in the rush of new home development soon concluded that new home development wasn’t a good idea.)

An earlier generation of Republicans would have found supporters among these new residents. Those Republicans demanded efficient government, but they didn’t think all taxes were bad. They didn’t view government as an unrelenting impediment to success. They supported education and other government initiatives that helped business become more successful.

In the days when California was building the finest public school system and the finest highway system in the world, Democrats and Republicans worked together.

In essence, today’s Republican Party in California has decided it no longer wants to be the pragmatic, problem-solving, mainstream party of Earl Warren and Ronald Reagan. It wants to be the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-immigrant party.

In the hand-wringing that began with last week’s state convention, GOP leaders announced plans to reach out to Latino voters. This was, of course, the same party whose leaders in the 1990s sponsored measures to outlaw affirmative action and to impose sanctions on illegal immigrants. Now the GOP hopes Latino voters will forgive and forget.

So we return to the original question: Can local Republicans come back? After all, Republicans were once competitive here; couldn’t they be that way again?

The answer is: Not unless the party changes.

The coastal counties of California have shown themselves to favor a political outlook not recently associated with the new Republican orthodoxy. In Sonoma County, a Republican hasn’t won a partisan election in more than 15 years. And the fastest growing bloc of voters is composed of Latinos who have felt unwelcome in the GOP.

The people in the most conservative wing of the Republican Party imagine themselves to be heirs to the legacy of Reagan.

But, as president of the United States, Reagan signed legislation to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

As governor, he signed one of the largest tax increases in state history. He also signed legislation making state income taxes subject to payroll withholding. And he signed into law a bill to permit a woman to secure an abortion in case of rape or incest, or if her life was in danger.

Imagine the reaction from today’s tea party Republicans.

This doesn’t mean Reagan wasn’t conservative. It means he understood that success is achieved when elected representatives work together to fashion solutions.

If the leaders of the California Republican Party want to be relevant again, they could begin by revisiting the traditions of the pragmatic Republicans who preceded them. They were Republicans who believed in the future, Republicans who didn’t believe that “no, no, no” was the answer to every question.

(Pete Golis is a columnist for The Press Democrat. Email him at golispd@gmail.com.)

Shameless dilettante that I am, I’ve actually seen eight of the nine films nominated for Best Picture – “Amour,” “Argo,” “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” “Django Unchained,” “Les Miserables,” “Lincoln,” “Silver Linings Playbook,” and “Zero Dark Thirty.”

I liked them all, which doesn’t alway happen. “Lincoln” and “Argo” are terrific – if conventional – movies. “Django Unchained” is pure Tarantino – wild and violent and provocative. “Amour” is sad and poignant.

But if I had a ballot to cast, I would vote for “Zero Dark Thirty.” Notwithstanding the controversy over the movie’s torture scenes, here was a movie about our time – about a dangerous and shadowy world and the people who do the hard and anonymous work of trying to keep us safe.

In my column, I didn’t mention two of the eight films I’ve seen.

“Beasts of the Southern Wild” is a movie that demonstrates how independent film makers can now find an audience. The movie was made for a fraction of the cost of other nominated films.

Then there is “Les Miserables.” If nothing else, you should see this movie for the four minutes and 38 seconds that will win Ann Hathaway the Oscar for best supporting actress.

Over all, I found the movie a jumble of high and low points, good songs and bad songs. (You shouldn’t see it if you think musicals should be inhabited only by actors who can actually sing.) At the end, I decided “Les Miserables” was just over-cooked.

If the Oscar competition for Best Picture was a horse race, “Lincoln” would be leading, but “Argo” would be coming up fast on the outside.

“Argo,” which seemed like a long shot a couple of weeks ago, keeps winning awards that often provide the best indication of which movie will win Best Picture. The film directed by and starring Ben Affleck has won the Golden Globes, the Directors Guild Award and the Screen Actors Guild Award, among others. On Sunday, it won the Writers Guild Award for best adapted screenplay. (“Zero Dark Thirty” won for best original screenplay.)

Film critic Roger Ebert has been predicting since last September that “Argo” would win the big prize, but until recently, not many believed him.

We’ll know more on Sunday. Let the Oscar parties begin!

If you were there, you know this was an extraordinary event, combining the best of what a community can offer – compassion, energy, generosity and pride. Whether they knew Cristina and Alexis or not, people wanted to be there to show their support, to show how their town steps up when others need help.

As Supervisor Efren Carrillo noted, all kinds of people showed up to lend a hand. They could be seen setting up tables, serving food, playing music or just dropping a few dollars in a basket.

Two days before Christmas, Cristina and her cousin, Alexis, were seriously injured in a traffic accident in Mexico. Cristina’s mother, Maria Torres Garcia, was killed. You can read Carter’s story about a community’s generosity and see Christopher Chung’s photo of Cristina and friends by clicking here.

I drove through San Francisco last week and saw absolutely no one in a state of undress. It may be that folks otherwise tempted to disrobe anticipated the next day’s headline in The Press Democrat.

In the meanness and pettiness that afflicts local politics from time to time, it has come down to this. Someone other than one of her rival candidates decided it was OK to take a free shot at a school board member who has served her community for a dozen years.

When this kind of politics reaches down to school board and city council elections, observed my colleague, Chris Coursey, “it is a very sad day.”

We are left to wonder if this anonymous person has the good sense to be embarrassed.

Now and always, voting is the best revenge. When politicians and political operatives find out there’s a price to pay for such tactics, they will stop employing them. People find countless reasons to choose one candidate or another, but they could do worse than vote for the candidate who shows respect for their intelligence.

In recent years, we have come to expect these dispiriting moments in election campaigns.

What’s more surprising in this election season is how strangely quiet it has been.

There are four reasons, I think:

First, they shouldn’t, but people not involved with one special interest group or another have more or less given up on state government. Too many years of dysfunction have taken their toll.

Second, in a region with overwhelming Democratic majorities, most of the congressional and state legislative campaigns are over before they start.

In time, the state’s new top-two primary system is supposed to make these races more competitive, but at least for this year, the names seem strangely familiar. As incumbents, they all have piles of campaign cash — another reminder of the disproportionate and inequitable influence of money in politics.

Fewer people want to serve in elective office.

In so many ways, we’ve taken the fun and satisfaction out of governing. It’s not fun being attacked in ways all out of proportion to the issues. Ask Karyn Pulley.

Running for local office has become expensive, too, leaving candidates to devote a lot of time to grubbing for donations.

And governing is difficult right now. In the backwash of the 2008 recession, elected officials don’t get to pursue all the great new ideas they have. They have to figure out the least destructive ways to cut programs that make a difference in people’s lives.

In Rohnert Park and Windsor, rival groups once battled as if life itself was at stake. In this election, the candidates for council were running unopposed in both cities. So, to save a few bucks on elections costs, the cities canceled the elections and certified the winners.

In the national election, reliably Democratic states such as California and reliably Republican states such as (insert your favorite here) are afterthoughts.

People talk about the eight or 10 battleground states, but the contest is really reduced to the battleground counties in those states.

Which makes it all the more obscene that more than $1.4 billion has been spent on behalf of the two major party candidates.

How many ways could $1.4 billion be spent in pursuit of a healthier society? Instead, the money is being squandered on advertising that seldom resembles an honest presentation of the choices before us.

In Sonoma County, a few contests are getting our attention.

In the 1st District, two candidates for county supervisor, Susan Gorin and John Sawyer, are busy trying to prove they don’t like one another, and they’re succeeding. (Meanwhile, folks in the Sonoma Valley are trying to adjust to the new and unhappy prospect of being represented by someone from Santa Rosa.)

In Santa Rosa, district elections (Measure Q) may change the balance of power in city government, but the campaigns have been surprisingly low-key. After the election, it will be instructive to see if the partisans go back to their old ways – or actually demonstrate some concern for the problem of under-represented neighborhoods.

Also in Santa Rosa, candidates for City Council recently debated whether two candidates with different views should pledge to get along with one another. Only in Santa Rosa could an offer to cooperate be made into a controversy.

We need to make politics fun again. We need to pay attention again. We need to create a political culture in which people take pride in serving in government.

We will do these things not because they’re polite and respectful but because we always get the government we deserve.

Pete Golis is a columnist for The Press Democrat. Email him at golispd@gmail.com.

As someone who can never own too many tech toys, I find myself strangely disinterested. It happens that I like my decrepit, first-generation iPad. A year later, it’s still a revolutionary machine. It still amazes me with all that it can do. It’s fast enough, and if I want to take photos, I’ve got my phone. In  an emergency, I can even use a camera.

This is how it goes with technology. The next generation of products will always be faster and lighter – and often cheaper.

For me, the more interesting question is: Which combination of devices best fits my needs. A smart phone is a no-brainer. It’s pocketable, and sometimes I even use it as a phone. I like the iPad because it is great for reading. I can use it sitting on the couch, and it’s unobtrusive in a coffee shop or on an airplane.

But then what? Do I want the speed, power and memory of a full-sized laptop, or would I prefer the portability of one of the new streamlined laptops. The new MacBook Air has a full-sized keyboard and still weighs less than three pounds. It’s very slick.

In the world of technology, whatever we buy falls off the cutting edge about five minutes later. Which means I won’t be rushing to buy a new iPad. There is a new laptop in my future. I just don’t know which to choose.

The announcement said that HuffPo’s founder, liberal activist and talk-show celebrity Arianna Huffington, will be placed in charge of content at AOL.

It’s no surprise that tech, business and journalism blogs this morning are alive with conversations about the deal. Among the questions being debated: Is a company that recorded its first profit in 2010 worth $315 million? Can HuffPo maintain its inventiveness, snark and liberal credentials within the confines of a corporate bureaucracy? Can the acquisition of one small, media darling, HuffPo, transform the culture of a corporation, AOL, most often characterized as a media dinosaur?

As with many topics in this realm, smart people disagree about what the outcome will be.

This much we know: If you doubt the value of an idea, consider that The Huffington Post was started in 2005 with a stake of $1 million. That $315 million is not a bad return on six years’ work.

Home again and once more serious, I offer this random download on Tuesday’s results:

- So much for slates.

The resident political camps wanted Santa Rosa voters to embrace slates of candidates. But the voters showed that they prefer to make their own choices, thank you very much.

The City Council winners are one from Column A, Susan Gorin, and two from Column B, Jake Ours and Scott Bartley.

Having run on a slate and having decried her rivals as “the big-box slate,” Gorin told a TV audience on election night:  “Santa Rosans are pretty sophisticated. They reject slate politics.”

So now you tell us.

- Money can’t buy you happiness.

Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor, spent $142 million of her own money, and in return, received 3,088,070 votes. As other bloggers have noted, that’s more than $45 a vote – more than $50 a vote if you add the donations from other sources.

Fruit baskets might have been cheaper.

- If you want to win, draw the lines yourself.

If you think California doesn’t need reapportionment reform, consider this: The approval rating for the California legislature barely reaches double digits, but not a single incumbent on the ballot Tuesday was defeated. Not one.

The good news is, district boundaries are scheduled to be re-drawn by a citizens’ commission in time for the 2012 elections.

- In a sea of red, there is still California.

Political landscapes change, and some day, California might be a red state. But if Republicans couldn’t win major statewide races in this election, it may be a long time before they do. While Democrats were being routed in most other states, Democrat Jerry Brown recaptured the governor’s office after a 28-year absence and Democrat Barbara Boxer won six more years in the United States Senate.

- There’s no Republican like Schwarzenegger.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today was celebrating a victory over Texas oil companies and the defeat of Proposition 23, an initiative to suspend the state’s efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Can you name another Republican politician who worries about climate change and picks fights with oil companies?

Yes, it’s the same guy I first wrote about in 1974. Click here for my March column on Brown’s comeback. And please ignore the accompanying photo.

The influential Web site, Politico, predicts Republicans will gain 60-plus seats in the House of Representatives, maybe more. Forecasts from The New York Times political blogger and statistician Nate Silver put the number at 53, but Silver says no one knows for sure. One way or the other, Republicans would control the House.

Meanwhile, Politico says the GOP could gain as many as nine seats in the Senate, which means Democrats’ Senate majority also would be in jeopardy.

But will all this change the politics in the bluest of blue states, California?

If the opinion polls are correct, the answer is, probably not.

In the latest Field Poll, Republican Meg Whitman is trailing Democrat Jerry Brown by 10 points in the race for governor, and Republican Carly Fiorina is trailing Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer by eight points in the U.S. Senate contest.

If Whitman or Fiorina loses, there will be the usual postmortems, citing this reason or another for the candidate’s failure to connect with voters. But it’s also true that it’s just not easy to run as a Republican in California. Here’s why:

- Democrats enjoy a 13 percent edge in voter registration, 44-31. (In Sonoma and Marin counties, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 2-to-1.)

- To win the GOP primary, a candidate must run to the right to satisfy the party’s hardline conservative base, which means the candidate must spend the rest of the campaign trying to scramble back to the political center. What a candidate says in the heat of the primary election can come back to haunt her in October.

- The conservative opinions of Republicans in states such as Alaska, Mississippi or Delaware don’t play in California, where mainstream voters are more moderate on social and environmental issues. When Sarah Palin came for a visit recently, Whitman and Fiorina found reasons to be somewhere else.

The current governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a Republican, but he was a movie star, and he was elected for the first time in an open election with Democrats and Republicans, the recall of 2003. He didn’t have to survive a GOP primary to become governor. Organizational Republicans in California have never embraced Schwarzenegger and his moderate views on social and environmental issues.

Given the general disillusionment with government, it wouldn’t be surprising if the California electorate became more conservative over time. If Whitman, Fiorina or both win on Tuesday, their victories would be considered signposts to a political landscape that has changed – even in California.

But the polls for this election suggest California will be the great exception, as usual.