Seriously, I just hope that if California is stuck with either Kamala Harris or Loretta "Woo! Woo! Woo!" Sanchez as U. S. senator after next year for anything is a improvement over current Sen. Barbara Ma'am Boxer.
She is without a doubt the WORST person in the senate and that is saying a lot.
Look, both political parties have some hack people elected in safe seats and are none too bright. To be fair, a Republican senator I can think of that fits is Louisiana's David Vitter, who just lost his bid to become Louisiana governor.
But Sen. Vitter can't hold a candle to Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
Unbelievably after one of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, in a push for federal gun control laws, the ignorant tool said this:
Sensible gun laws work. We've proven it in California. And were not going to give up.
Has the tool been under a rock for the past what, 24 plus hours?! Did she not see the carnage that was committed in a state with some of the toughest gun laws in the land? How in the hell could this tool say what she said?
Yes, two people had a helluva lot of firepower. Most were high-powered at that. And all indications are that the two terrorists that carried out the attack yesterday in San Bernardino, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, obtained the weapons legally. And because of the California laws regarding magazines and the like, they are different than in other parts of the United States. They take longer to reload. And don't forget the bomb factory that was in the home of the two terrorists. And since they were killed in a shootout with law enforcement, we will not know what the California gun charges would have been.
But because today was a vote to try to increase background checks and allegedly close a "loophole" about gun show sales, our national embarrassment spoke in her usual manner.
Dumb.
People still get guns. Law abiding citizens follow the law to get guns. Some criminals do as well. Most who are criminals, however, do not. Even an outright gun ban, which is what is had essentially in France, can't stop people, especially committed terrorists, from obtaining weapons. Whether they be guns and or IED's or God forbid even worse.
What matters is how illegal use of guns are prosecuted. Not whether the person had the gun in the first place.
Sen. Ma'am Boxer's replacement has to be better than her for she is not a national treasure but a national buffoon.
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Thursday, December 03, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Pat Sajak For California Governor?
With the California governor, Jerry Moonbeam Brown, being term-limited out of office in 2018, no time like now to begin to see a replacement for the four-term left-wing governor.
So why not Pat Sajak?!
Pat Sajak?!
Isn't he the dude that hosts the Wheel Of Fortune game show?
And what, pray tel, makes him worthy of consideration for California governor? Haven't we already had an actor screw up the state once?
Normally I would be in agreement.
But Mr. Sajak is NOT Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Well, Mr. Sajak is a Republican, right?
Yes, he is.
So he must be a squish, right? Just like Benedict Arnold, right?
In reading this I do not think so in the least.
Mr. Sajak is a solid conservative.
One huge difference is that Mr. Sajak is, to be blunt, a Globaloney Warming/Climate change denier. And while not a certified meteorologist, Mr. Sajak was a weather reporter for KNBC channel 4 in Los Angeles before he made it big in Wheel Of Fortune land. Along the way one has to assume he learned a thing or two about weather. And where it all fits in on the great ecological debate of this era.
Mr. Sajak is not shy about the fact he believes in what we now call American Exceptionalism. Here is from the profile article:
"The Wright Brothers, what was it, 1903, they got about 20 feet in the air and went about 180 feet. Sixty-six years later we put a man on the moon and brought him back. Oh, and in the meantime we fought two world wars and fought a great depression."
A very short, succinct history of the United States in the 20th century. I would add that, under Ronald Reagan, the United States defeated and literally ended expansionist Soviet communism.
Mr. Sajak is a college dropout but serves on the board of Hillsdale College. And a vice-chairman, no less.
Unlike Benedict Arnold, who ran for California governor on a lark, I would expect Mr. Sajak to think about it with seriousness. He is 68 years old and a very young looking one at that. He would be about 70 years old if he were to take the challenge. And he is not annoying about his politics. It rarely, if ever, shows up on Wheel Of Fortune. One of the extreme times it did it was not so political as it was somewhat endearing. Mr. Sajak was talking to a contestant and he said to the contestant "You're engaged - some woman agreed to marry you!" the man told Mr. Sajak, "Some gentleman." to which Mr. Sajak retorted in an innocuous way, "Oh, I'm sorry - wrong again. I had a 50-50 shot." Of course the gay crusaders noticed it during the summer reruns and gave Mr. Sajak a hard time. When Mr. Sajak is not hosting a television gold mine, he is doing some writing over at the Ricochet conservative website.
Mr. Sajak is a lot like Ronald Reagan in that he does not take himself seriously but the ideas matter to him.
But in a clearly moribund California Republican party, he very well could be a shot in the arm in making the party truly competitive statewide.
While he is not thinking about it now, Mr. Sajak has nothing to prove in Wheel Of Fortune land. It is more successful than he ever imagined. Mr. Sajak literally saved the show. He is a wealthy man.
Maybe it will be time for Mr. Sajak to save California from the excesses of the leftist power structure.
So why not Pat Sajak?!
Pat Sajak?!
Isn't he the dude that hosts the Wheel Of Fortune game show?
And what, pray tel, makes him worthy of consideration for California governor? Haven't we already had an actor screw up the state once?
Normally I would be in agreement.
But Mr. Sajak is NOT Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Well, Mr. Sajak is a Republican, right?
Yes, he is.
So he must be a squish, right? Just like Benedict Arnold, right?
In reading this I do not think so in the least.
Mr. Sajak is a solid conservative.
One huge difference is that Mr. Sajak is, to be blunt, a Globaloney Warming/Climate change denier. And while not a certified meteorologist, Mr. Sajak was a weather reporter for KNBC channel 4 in Los Angeles before he made it big in Wheel Of Fortune land. Along the way one has to assume he learned a thing or two about weather. And where it all fits in on the great ecological debate of this era.
Mr. Sajak is not shy about the fact he believes in what we now call American Exceptionalism. Here is from the profile article:
"The Wright Brothers, what was it, 1903, they got about 20 feet in the air and went about 180 feet. Sixty-six years later we put a man on the moon and brought him back. Oh, and in the meantime we fought two world wars and fought a great depression."
A very short, succinct history of the United States in the 20th century. I would add that, under Ronald Reagan, the United States defeated and literally ended expansionist Soviet communism.
Mr. Sajak is a college dropout but serves on the board of Hillsdale College. And a vice-chairman, no less.
Unlike Benedict Arnold, who ran for California governor on a lark, I would expect Mr. Sajak to think about it with seriousness. He is 68 years old and a very young looking one at that. He would be about 70 years old if he were to take the challenge. And he is not annoying about his politics. It rarely, if ever, shows up on Wheel Of Fortune. One of the extreme times it did it was not so political as it was somewhat endearing. Mr. Sajak was talking to a contestant and he said to the contestant "You're engaged - some woman agreed to marry you!" the man told Mr. Sajak, "Some gentleman." to which Mr. Sajak retorted in an innocuous way, "Oh, I'm sorry - wrong again. I had a 50-50 shot." Of course the gay crusaders noticed it during the summer reruns and gave Mr. Sajak a hard time. When Mr. Sajak is not hosting a television gold mine, he is doing some writing over at the Ricochet conservative website.
Mr. Sajak is a lot like Ronald Reagan in that he does not take himself seriously but the ideas matter to him.
But in a clearly moribund California Republican party, he very well could be a shot in the arm in making the party truly competitive statewide.
While he is not thinking about it now, Mr. Sajak has nothing to prove in Wheel Of Fortune land. It is more successful than he ever imagined. Mr. Sajak literally saved the show. He is a wealthy man.
Maybe it will be time for Mr. Sajak to save California from the excesses of the leftist power structure.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Joel Kotkin Strikes Again On What Ails California
Chapman University professor and Orange County Register columnist Joel Kotkin has written another brilliant piece on the monumental problems facing California that is certain to raise the hackles of the left.
As The Sacramento Bee is reporting that there is a $3,000,000,000 budget surplus and what the dominant Democrat majority in Sacramento want to do with it, Mr. Kotkin writes about the long-term prospects for California under the current Democrat regime.
Oh, FTR, the Democrats want to spend it all on education. A payoff for the teacher unions if there ever was one.
Mr. Kotkin and even I will give a bit of credit to Gov. Brown. It is as if he is the one adult left in the state capital.
But Mr. Kotkin does pretty much dissect the fact that in terms of economic growth, California is non-existent in that category.
For instance, a sure sign on economic growth is job creation.
Mr. Kotkin pointed out that last year, California added about 450,000 jobs and for the first time, in raw numbers, outranked Texas in the last 10 years. But a look beyond the numbers and it turns out that it is roughly the same rate of job growth. For the period of 2007-2014, California had an anemic 0.7% job growth while Texas had a 11% of job growth. And the number of jobs in California during that time? A rip-roaring 120,000 new jobs. Not good. Not good at all.
Another aspect of the so-called recovery is how narrow it is.
According to Mr. Kotkin, much of the recovery is centered in the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley. Outside of that area, the rest of the urban areas of California are not doing so well. my area, the Los Angeles area, is either at or below national average on all economic indicators. And while the rich are really getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and being joined by one-time middle-class workers. California has the fifth highest level of state unemployment in the United States.
Before anyone suggests that the high unemployment is centered in the inland areas, particularly and especially in the Central Valley, Three urban areas, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco are in the top 10 in income inequality.
What this is leading to is a continuation of the exodus of the middle class that can get out. Many are just too tied to this state and or where they are and it is not viable to leave.
The most depressing aspect of all of this is the current progressive zeitgeist is the attempt to basically make California like, like . . .New York. That's state and city.
Look at the anti-farmer policies of Brown and company. It's not so much anti-farmer but more clueless than anything else.
We all know that industry is so disliked by the left. But they are under the delusion that the government, in this case the state of California, can jump start a nascent "green" economy. It is one of the main reasons why Gov. Brown is so pushing for the bullet train to nowhere. A rail line that will not be up and going in full until 2028 according to this article in this past Sunday's Los Angeles Times.
But here is something that is truth and not conspiracy.
The Democrats and the left now would like to pack cities with people instead of people wanting to live where they want.
One of the leftist fetishes is the concept of the mixed-use building.
What is a mixed-use building?
It is overwhelming apartments but, usually, on the ground floor are businesses of all kinds so that you don't have to drive to so many places. Even markets are located in some mixed-use buildings. And the other idea is to have one's workplace within walking and or bike-riding distance. What the left would like is to revert to Peking of the 1970s that we saw few if any cars (usually Communist party mucks) and lots of bikes on extremely wide thoroughfares.
Mr. Kotkin points all of this up in the article.
In fact, he ends the article with this point:
Being like New York – crowded and hectic but with better weather – is not exactly the future most people seek in California. I know few adults who look forward to giving up tree-lined sun-drenched residential streets for dark apartment warrens. It was better when the Eastern press laughed at us, since we always knew that we owned the better part of the deal. Now they are both praising us and becoming us and, in the process, challenging the very things that have made this such a special place.
Of course, as a native-born and raised Californian, the thought of being anything like New York is, well plain revolting.
What is needed to get California more on track?
First, getting rid of the cap and trade regulation that does not one thing that it claims it will do.
Second a complete audit of all state regulations and get rid of those that stunt economic growth and those that are redundant.
Lastly California needs a complete tax overhaul. Remember, by and large the ways of tax revenue are the state income tax, sales tax and property taxes.
It's a long-term project that just does not do well in 30 second sound bites. Or even 60 second sound bites. It will take a leader of courage to tell us the truth once and for all.
Maybe Joel Kotkin can run for governor?!
As The Sacramento Bee is reporting that there is a $3,000,000,000 budget surplus and what the dominant Democrat majority in Sacramento want to do with it, Mr. Kotkin writes about the long-term prospects for California under the current Democrat regime.
Oh, FTR, the Democrats want to spend it all on education. A payoff for the teacher unions if there ever was one.
Mr. Kotkin and even I will give a bit of credit to Gov. Brown. It is as if he is the one adult left in the state capital.
But Mr. Kotkin does pretty much dissect the fact that in terms of economic growth, California is non-existent in that category.
For instance, a sure sign on economic growth is job creation.
Mr. Kotkin pointed out that last year, California added about 450,000 jobs and for the first time, in raw numbers, outranked Texas in the last 10 years. But a look beyond the numbers and it turns out that it is roughly the same rate of job growth. For the period of 2007-2014, California had an anemic 0.7% job growth while Texas had a 11% of job growth. And the number of jobs in California during that time? A rip-roaring 120,000 new jobs. Not good. Not good at all.
Another aspect of the so-called recovery is how narrow it is.
According to Mr. Kotkin, much of the recovery is centered in the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley. Outside of that area, the rest of the urban areas of California are not doing so well. my area, the Los Angeles area, is either at or below national average on all economic indicators. And while the rich are really getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and being joined by one-time middle-class workers. California has the fifth highest level of state unemployment in the United States.
Before anyone suggests that the high unemployment is centered in the inland areas, particularly and especially in the Central Valley, Three urban areas, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco are in the top 10 in income inequality.
What this is leading to is a continuation of the exodus of the middle class that can get out. Many are just too tied to this state and or where they are and it is not viable to leave.
The most depressing aspect of all of this is the current progressive zeitgeist is the attempt to basically make California like, like . . .New York. That's state and city.
Look at the anti-farmer policies of Brown and company. It's not so much anti-farmer but more clueless than anything else.
We all know that industry is so disliked by the left. But they are under the delusion that the government, in this case the state of California, can jump start a nascent "green" economy. It is one of the main reasons why Gov. Brown is so pushing for the bullet train to nowhere. A rail line that will not be up and going in full until 2028 according to this article in this past Sunday's Los Angeles Times.
But here is something that is truth and not conspiracy.
The Democrats and the left now would like to pack cities with people instead of people wanting to live where they want.
One of the leftist fetishes is the concept of the mixed-use building.
What is a mixed-use building?
It is overwhelming apartments but, usually, on the ground floor are businesses of all kinds so that you don't have to drive to so many places. Even markets are located in some mixed-use buildings. And the other idea is to have one's workplace within walking and or bike-riding distance. What the left would like is to revert to Peking of the 1970s that we saw few if any cars (usually Communist party mucks) and lots of bikes on extremely wide thoroughfares.
Mr. Kotkin points all of this up in the article.
In fact, he ends the article with this point:
Being like New York – crowded and hectic but with better weather – is not exactly the future most people seek in California. I know few adults who look forward to giving up tree-lined sun-drenched residential streets for dark apartment warrens. It was better when the Eastern press laughed at us, since we always knew that we owned the better part of the deal. Now they are both praising us and becoming us and, in the process, challenging the very things that have made this such a special place.
Of course, as a native-born and raised Californian, the thought of being anything like New York is, well plain revolting.
What is needed to get California more on track?
First, getting rid of the cap and trade regulation that does not one thing that it claims it will do.
Second a complete audit of all state regulations and get rid of those that stunt economic growth and those that are redundant.
Lastly California needs a complete tax overhaul. Remember, by and large the ways of tax revenue are the state income tax, sales tax and property taxes.
It's a long-term project that just does not do well in 30 second sound bites. Or even 60 second sound bites. It will take a leader of courage to tell us the truth once and for all.
Maybe Joel Kotkin can run for governor?!
Saturday, March 14, 2015
How Does A Conservative Vote And Participate In A Liberal City?
I know, I know; why would a conservative even live in a liberal city, right?
Well, unlike many on the other side, we conservatives can appreciate a good city despite it's politics. We can even find some agreement with political opponents if it serves the interest of the city on the whole. And some on the other side will work with those of us who self-identify as conservative to reach such a goal.
This past Tuesday were the municipal elections for my hometown of Pasadena, California. The Crown City. Home of the Rose Parade and the Rose Bowl football game on New Year's Day.
We had elections for mayor, several city council seats and two school board seats.
And let me be clear that there was no self-identified conservative running for anything. Yes, there was a Republican who ran for mayor, Bill Thomson. But in the six-candidate field, he was the only one. And because in this election the winner must win 50% plus one, that did not happen. And in one city council race, it did not happen either. Thus we move onto round two on April 21. Here are the election results.
The leader of the mayor's race is a city council member, Terry Tornek. He is an establishment type as he really has not many new ideas and is fine with the status quo. Sure, he pays lip service to some liberal issues such as raising the minimum wage to a "livable" wage of $15 an hour. And he speaks of supporting public safety employees (fire and police), a more conservative issue, yet offers no ideas to fully fund and staff such departments.
But I assure you that the second place finisher, another city councilman, is much more of a true-believer liberal.
That is Jacque Robinson.
She is totally down with the $15 "living" wage scam. She is one of those that does not think we have a problem in staffing and compensation for public safety employees. And she is definitely anti-police. But worse is, like Mr. Tornek, she has a large role in the $6,400,000 embezzlement scandal that is gripping our city. If you are interested in comprehensive coverage, there are numerous stories about it here.
Make no mistake, Miss Robinson will definitely move Pasadena even further to the left.
Since I am extremely concerned about public safety, I think that Mr. Tornek will address the problem much more favorably than Miss Robinson.
And if one does not believe that there are problems with the police and fire departments, one should read this article as well as this article in the Pasadena Weekly. The Weekly is not exactly pro-police so if they are disturbed enough about things in the department as well as the fire department, one should take it seriously.
Like I said, there are issues that neither candidate will address that I think are important as a conservative. So it is a tough one for me. But in having conversations with neighbors and police personnel, public safety is the issue I will focus on like a laser beam and as such, I will end up voting for the lesser of two evils.
I will vote for Terry Tornek for mayor of Pasadena in the runoff election.
For conservatives, we have to narrow down to one major issue that can unite the community. We can't go on some esoteric approach and run campaigns that are guaranteed to be losing efforts. Since conservatives can get behind support for public safety, we have to find candidates that will offer strong support for the most important services a city must provide.
Another way to determine who to support is to go to the website of a candidate and see who endorses the candidate.
In the case of Miss Robinson, it is a veritable who's who of every left-wing group one can imagine. And to be honest, a lot of endorsements are from a lot of people and groups outside of the city. And it should be noted that while she does have union support, two unions not supporting are the police and fire unions.
Looking at Mr. Tornek's endorsements, it is clear that he is focusing on people within the city and not any particular group or party. To me, a good sign. It shows that Mr. Tornek is more focused on Pasadena and our unique issues.
And while at the website, see what issues a candidate wants to discuss their position on. For instance, Mr. Tornek addresses that there are new kinds of crime and wants to work with the police department to address those crimes. And while overall crime has gone down, there has been a very recent uptick in crime including shootings and murders. On the other hand, Miss Robinson looks at the police as glorified social workers rather than the last line of defense between reasonable order and anarchy. And Miss Robinson thinks that she is also on the local school board as she wants the city to partner with the public schools in a way that is frankly out of the purview of the city council.
Before any conservative or Republican says why does it matter, a liberal Democrat is going to win anyway, we have to recognize we will not be taken seriously if we do not engage in the process. Also, in California all elected officials are supposed to be non-partisan up to state assembly and further up the chain. Thus a winning candidate can be held accountable to issues of importance to conservatives/Republicans who participate by voting and or even volunteering for the candidate closest to what we stand for.
That is how a conservative and or Republican participates and votes in a liberal city.
Well, unlike many on the other side, we conservatives can appreciate a good city despite it's politics. We can even find some agreement with political opponents if it serves the interest of the city on the whole. And some on the other side will work with those of us who self-identify as conservative to reach such a goal.
This past Tuesday were the municipal elections for my hometown of Pasadena, California. The Crown City. Home of the Rose Parade and the Rose Bowl football game on New Year's Day.
We had elections for mayor, several city council seats and two school board seats.
And let me be clear that there was no self-identified conservative running for anything. Yes, there was a Republican who ran for mayor, Bill Thomson. But in the six-candidate field, he was the only one. And because in this election the winner must win 50% plus one, that did not happen. And in one city council race, it did not happen either. Thus we move onto round two on April 21. Here are the election results.
The leader of the mayor's race is a city council member, Terry Tornek. He is an establishment type as he really has not many new ideas and is fine with the status quo. Sure, he pays lip service to some liberal issues such as raising the minimum wage to a "livable" wage of $15 an hour. And he speaks of supporting public safety employees (fire and police), a more conservative issue, yet offers no ideas to fully fund and staff such departments.
But I assure you that the second place finisher, another city councilman, is much more of a true-believer liberal.
That is Jacque Robinson.
She is totally down with the $15 "living" wage scam. She is one of those that does not think we have a problem in staffing and compensation for public safety employees. And she is definitely anti-police. But worse is, like Mr. Tornek, she has a large role in the $6,400,000 embezzlement scandal that is gripping our city. If you are interested in comprehensive coverage, there are numerous stories about it here.
Make no mistake, Miss Robinson will definitely move Pasadena even further to the left.
Since I am extremely concerned about public safety, I think that Mr. Tornek will address the problem much more favorably than Miss Robinson.
And if one does not believe that there are problems with the police and fire departments, one should read this article as well as this article in the Pasadena Weekly. The Weekly is not exactly pro-police so if they are disturbed enough about things in the department as well as the fire department, one should take it seriously.
Like I said, there are issues that neither candidate will address that I think are important as a conservative. So it is a tough one for me. But in having conversations with neighbors and police personnel, public safety is the issue I will focus on like a laser beam and as such, I will end up voting for the lesser of two evils.
I will vote for Terry Tornek for mayor of Pasadena in the runoff election.
For conservatives, we have to narrow down to one major issue that can unite the community. We can't go on some esoteric approach and run campaigns that are guaranteed to be losing efforts. Since conservatives can get behind support for public safety, we have to find candidates that will offer strong support for the most important services a city must provide.
Another way to determine who to support is to go to the website of a candidate and see who endorses the candidate.
In the case of Miss Robinson, it is a veritable who's who of every left-wing group one can imagine. And to be honest, a lot of endorsements are from a lot of people and groups outside of the city. And it should be noted that while she does have union support, two unions not supporting are the police and fire unions.
Looking at Mr. Tornek's endorsements, it is clear that he is focusing on people within the city and not any particular group or party. To me, a good sign. It shows that Mr. Tornek is more focused on Pasadena and our unique issues.
And while at the website, see what issues a candidate wants to discuss their position on. For instance, Mr. Tornek addresses that there are new kinds of crime and wants to work with the police department to address those crimes. And while overall crime has gone down, there has been a very recent uptick in crime including shootings and murders. On the other hand, Miss Robinson looks at the police as glorified social workers rather than the last line of defense between reasonable order and anarchy. And Miss Robinson thinks that she is also on the local school board as she wants the city to partner with the public schools in a way that is frankly out of the purview of the city council.
Before any conservative or Republican says why does it matter, a liberal Democrat is going to win anyway, we have to recognize we will not be taken seriously if we do not engage in the process. Also, in California all elected officials are supposed to be non-partisan up to state assembly and further up the chain. Thus a winning candidate can be held accountable to issues of importance to conservatives/Republicans who participate by voting and or even volunteering for the candidate closest to what we stand for.
That is how a conservative and or Republican participates and votes in a liberal city.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Prop. 14 Not Exactly Working Out Says . . .The Los Angeles Times?!
A few election cycles ago, the voters of California passed Proposition 14, which changed the primary elections statewide to a total open primary, regardless of party, and the top two go on the general election.
What Prop. 14 did was change how state and federal legislative districts were drawn and made a total open primary, regardless of party, in which the top two finishers go on to the general election. The first two also applies to federal senate elections It also includes elections for all the state constitutional offices starting with governor.
Add that to Proposition 11, passed by California voters in 2008, which took the redistricting of said lines from above and put it in the hands of an "independent" commission, and the so-called good government folks had their orgasm.
See, some folks are worried that people are just not voting in elections. Save for the presidential elections, voter turnout in California does not really break records. Except going the other way. So the same folks figured, lets see if taking redistricting out of the hands of the legislature. Get a group of non-partisan types and regular folks together and figure it out. And of course there is the terrible partisanship that goes on in Sacramento and Washington. Why let's get the parties out of the way and just have an open primary. Sure, we will put on the ballot what party each candidate belongs to. But it does not matter because it will be the top two. Period.
Without partisanship in the redrawing of lines and essentially the primaries, a slew of "moderates" would be nominated and win elections and harmony would reign in California.
I am now inserting the laugh track here.
According to this post over at HotAir.com, it appears that voters, those that even bother nowadays, are not all that happy with the current system we have in place.
But the biggest surprise is that in this past Sunday's Los Angeles Times, writer Mark Barabak wrote that Prop. 14 is not exactly working out as the proponents thought.
Shock of all shock!
Remember, all of this reform was to boost voter turnout because after all there would be this wave of middle-of-the-roaders and all would be well once again.
Let's take a look at the last primary election last June. As I noted in this post shortly after the primary election, a grand total of 18%, yes you read that right, 18% of voters bothered to cast ballots. And it did not vastly improve in the November general election as 31% bothered to vote in that election.
Folks, that is not exactly a positive for a process that was supposed to improve everything in voting.
In the HotAir link, the "independent" reapportionment commission was essentially hijacked by, you guessed it, Democrat activists. The Democrats in California had been the primary drawers of all district lines for decades. They were not going to let a pesky little "independent" commission get in the way. Hell, they openly violated the rules and had people, including a Democrat hack from Idaho and lives in Sacramento to testify before the commission. As the saying goes, read the whole thing.
The reality is that the Democrats worked the new system like a Stradivarius while the Republicans, as usual, looked and acted DUH.
So, strong Democrat districts, a Democrat incumbent governor that built a huge war chest and enjoys, mystically, high approval/popularity ratings and a Republican party still trying just to pay off bills from the 2010 campaign and having no serious candidate for governor and you get . . .low turnout and an even more who cares type of electorate.
In regards to the open primary of Prop. 14, the reality is that there are really more partisan districts. There are more general election races that are between two Democrats or two Republicans. Many districts at all levels, state assembly, state senate, congress and the state constitutional offices have no primary or general election,opponent. The whole point, supposedly, was to get more moderate candidates eventually elected and that the two big parties would work together. The reality is that in heavy Democrat or Republican districts, the other side would not support a candidate in the top two not in their party.
Say, what about third parties?
Another reality that I think is the main thrust of Prop. 14 was it completely shuts out the minor parties recognized in California except in the Presidential election.
The American Independent, Greens, Libertarians, Natural Law, Peace and Freedom, will almost never ever finish in the top two. Thus eventually they will shrivel up and die and the voters will be stuck with twiddle dee and twiddle dum.
One thing that has not happened but very well might is in a high-profile race such as governor or senate, the two general election candidates could be from the same party. It could very well happen in 2016 in the race to replace Sen. Barbara Ma'am Boxer. Already the Democrat state attorney general, Kamala Harris, has announced her candidacy. It is expected that the former Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villar, aka Villaraigosa, will also run. Unless the Republicans can muster up a very, very credible candidate, that could be your two finalists for the general election.
Will more people really come out to vote for two candidates that are essentially the same but from different ethnic groups?
No, no and nope. Not. Gonna. Happen.
I had been against an open primary and am totally against this system. But I will concede that a semi-open primary would be a better alternative.
It was tried earlier and the Republicans did not open their primary to non-Republicans. It's time we did.
Let all political parties be represented and voters can go to the polls and vote in the party primary they choose. If Democrats want to vote in the GOP, fine. If Republicans want to vote in the Democrat primary, fine. If one wants to vote minor party, fine. And the winner in each primary goes to the general election. Thus minor parties are represented and the two big parties also will have more candidates and voter interest.
The "independent" commission in charge of drawing the lines must be willing to solicit information from all parties about the lines. They must be able to know what interest any person or group has regarding testifying before the commission. It must have multiples maps to vote on. It must weigh multiple factors including and especially legal factors. It must make the lines as least partisan as possible.
And one last thing.
All parties need to realize that if they want to have higher voter turnout, have compelling candidates. Candidates willing to go out of their comfort zones. Candidates willing to break free from the interests of their party. To say what they think and how they would govern.
I think that these are better ideas than the continuing reinventing the wheel.
When you lose the Los Angeles Times on election reform, you have to realize that so far, all reform has made it worse.
What Prop. 14 did was change how state and federal legislative districts were drawn and made a total open primary, regardless of party, in which the top two finishers go on to the general election. The first two also applies to federal senate elections It also includes elections for all the state constitutional offices starting with governor.
Add that to Proposition 11, passed by California voters in 2008, which took the redistricting of said lines from above and put it in the hands of an "independent" commission, and the so-called good government folks had their orgasm.
See, some folks are worried that people are just not voting in elections. Save for the presidential elections, voter turnout in California does not really break records. Except going the other way. So the same folks figured, lets see if taking redistricting out of the hands of the legislature. Get a group of non-partisan types and regular folks together and figure it out. And of course there is the terrible partisanship that goes on in Sacramento and Washington. Why let's get the parties out of the way and just have an open primary. Sure, we will put on the ballot what party each candidate belongs to. But it does not matter because it will be the top two. Period.
Without partisanship in the redrawing of lines and essentially the primaries, a slew of "moderates" would be nominated and win elections and harmony would reign in California.
I am now inserting the laugh track here.
According to this post over at HotAir.com, it appears that voters, those that even bother nowadays, are not all that happy with the current system we have in place.
But the biggest surprise is that in this past Sunday's Los Angeles Times, writer Mark Barabak wrote that Prop. 14 is not exactly working out as the proponents thought.
Shock of all shock!
Remember, all of this reform was to boost voter turnout because after all there would be this wave of middle-of-the-roaders and all would be well once again.
Let's take a look at the last primary election last June. As I noted in this post shortly after the primary election, a grand total of 18%, yes you read that right, 18% of voters bothered to cast ballots. And it did not vastly improve in the November general election as 31% bothered to vote in that election.
Folks, that is not exactly a positive for a process that was supposed to improve everything in voting.
In the HotAir link, the "independent" reapportionment commission was essentially hijacked by, you guessed it, Democrat activists. The Democrats in California had been the primary drawers of all district lines for decades. They were not going to let a pesky little "independent" commission get in the way. Hell, they openly violated the rules and had people, including a Democrat hack from Idaho and lives in Sacramento to testify before the commission. As the saying goes, read the whole thing.
The reality is that the Democrats worked the new system like a Stradivarius while the Republicans, as usual, looked and acted DUH.
So, strong Democrat districts, a Democrat incumbent governor that built a huge war chest and enjoys, mystically, high approval/popularity ratings and a Republican party still trying just to pay off bills from the 2010 campaign and having no serious candidate for governor and you get . . .low turnout and an even more who cares type of electorate.
In regards to the open primary of Prop. 14, the reality is that there are really more partisan districts. There are more general election races that are between two Democrats or two Republicans. Many districts at all levels, state assembly, state senate, congress and the state constitutional offices have no primary or general election,opponent. The whole point, supposedly, was to get more moderate candidates eventually elected and that the two big parties would work together. The reality is that in heavy Democrat or Republican districts, the other side would not support a candidate in the top two not in their party.
Say, what about third parties?
Another reality that I think is the main thrust of Prop. 14 was it completely shuts out the minor parties recognized in California except in the Presidential election.
The American Independent, Greens, Libertarians, Natural Law, Peace and Freedom, will almost never ever finish in the top two. Thus eventually they will shrivel up and die and the voters will be stuck with twiddle dee and twiddle dum.
One thing that has not happened but very well might is in a high-profile race such as governor or senate, the two general election candidates could be from the same party. It could very well happen in 2016 in the race to replace Sen. Barbara Ma'am Boxer. Already the Democrat state attorney general, Kamala Harris, has announced her candidacy. It is expected that the former Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villar, aka Villaraigosa, will also run. Unless the Republicans can muster up a very, very credible candidate, that could be your two finalists for the general election.
Will more people really come out to vote for two candidates that are essentially the same but from different ethnic groups?
No, no and nope. Not. Gonna. Happen.
I had been against an open primary and am totally against this system. But I will concede that a semi-open primary would be a better alternative.
It was tried earlier and the Republicans did not open their primary to non-Republicans. It's time we did.
Let all political parties be represented and voters can go to the polls and vote in the party primary they choose. If Democrats want to vote in the GOP, fine. If Republicans want to vote in the Democrat primary, fine. If one wants to vote minor party, fine. And the winner in each primary goes to the general election. Thus minor parties are represented and the two big parties also will have more candidates and voter interest.
The "independent" commission in charge of drawing the lines must be willing to solicit information from all parties about the lines. They must be able to know what interest any person or group has regarding testifying before the commission. It must have multiples maps to vote on. It must weigh multiple factors including and especially legal factors. It must make the lines as least partisan as possible.
And one last thing.
All parties need to realize that if they want to have higher voter turnout, have compelling candidates. Candidates willing to go out of their comfort zones. Candidates willing to break free from the interests of their party. To say what they think and how they would govern.
I think that these are better ideas than the continuing reinventing the wheel.
When you lose the Los Angeles Times on election reform, you have to realize that so far, all reform has made it worse.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Sen. Ma'am Boxer Will Not Run For Reelection in '16-Does The GOP Have A Chance?
In an otherwise sad and depressing week, surprisingly one senator made my week as Sen. Ma'am Barbara Boxer announced in her usually strange way that she will not run for a fifth term in 2016.
Thank God Almighty!
We in California will not be represented in the United States senate in 2017 by the most incompetent person elected in my lifetime.
That is the good news.
The bad news is that this is California and it is a better than 60-40 chance that the Democrats will retain the seat. If that is the case, one hopes that the person elected is better than the dim bulb that has been Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
Before I go one, I must remind you of how Sen. Ma'am got her name on this blog.
On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, during a hearing with Brigadier General Michael Walsh of the Army Corps of Engineers, he made a horrific mistake. Brig. Gen. Walsh called the senator such a foul name, I'm not sure that I can write it on a family blog.
He called her ma'am.
OH THE HORROR! HOW DARE HE USE SUCH LANGUAGE IN A SENATE HEARING! RIGHT TO BARBARA BOXER'S FACE!
Well, Barbara Boxer put this eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, awful man in his place:
“Do me a favor, can you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am’?” It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it. Thank you.”
Take THAT you, you brigadier general!
So, due to Barbara Boxer's hypersensitivity and self-importance, this blogger refers to her as Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
Now on to the meat of this post.
While the task is daunting for the Republican party to snatch that seat from the Democrats, nothing is impossible.
So, who are some possible candidates that can do the job?
First on the potential list is one that has indicated he wants to run for another office. But could he be convinced to lower his expectations and settle for a senate seat?
Well that would be Mitt Romney, of course.
I know, I know, Mr. Romney wants to be president and he really thinks he can do it in this third time. But for the moment, in a reality burst, Mr. Romney says, "Ahh, I can't really win this president thing. Maybe I can serve in another way. I'm now pretty California connected. More than Hillary Clinton was when she carpetbagged her way to a New York senate seat. Maybe I'll give this senate run a try."
If he does, the positives are that he fits the overall California electorate. While a center-right politician, in his one term as governor of Massachusetts, he governed in the same manner. As conservative as one could when the state legislature and senate are two-thirds Democratic. Oh, and he ran for the senate before, you know.
In 1994, while the Republican landslide that saw the GOP take the house from the Democrats after 40 years, Mr. Romney decided to take on the legendary senator, Edward "Teddy" Kennedy. Mr. Romney did not win that race, but it was the closest a Republican had gotten or ever did get to Sen. Kennedy. Mr. Romney lost the race by a large 58% to 41% percent margin. OK, that is a wide margin, but the fact is he did well in his first political foray.
So, Mr. Romney does have the experience of running a campaign for the senate.
Also important is that he would have the kind of money to run a competent, issue-oriented campaign against any Democrat.
But the downside is that counting that senate campaign, Mr. Romney is a three-time loser. And that is a hard thing to shake.
I still hope that Mr. Romney considers a run.
Another potential candidate is one that has ran before, in fact in the last campaign against Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
That would be Carly Fiorina who lost to Sen. Ma'am Boxer by a 52% to 42% margin. That is one of Sen. Ma'am Boxer's largest margins of victory.
Like Mr. Romney, Mrs. Fiorina has made a run before. She is also more like a center-rightist in the Mitt Romney mold. Of course the California leftywhore media did it's level best to paint Mrs. Fiorina as a California version of Sarah Palin. Hardly, but remember that Sen. Ma'am Boxer has literally won every election telling women she supports their right to kill babies in the womb and that she prefers stone-age living all for the environment.
Mrs. Fiorina did have a coherent platform and spent a lot of money to lose in the end. She would do so if she thought that she had a decent chance again.
And being a woman does help somewhat. She comes off more polished as our senior senator, Dianne Feinstein. She is not abrasive and would certainly never dress down a member of the armed forces unnecessarily.
Mrs. Fiorina has real-world business experience in being the CEO of technology giant Hewlett-Packard.
But her negatives are very strong.
Obviously, she ended up losing the senate race to Sen. Ma'am Boxer. In a year Republicans did well across the United States, Mrs. Fiorina spent a lot of money to end up with 42% of the vote. One way to look at it is she did five points better than Sen. John "F--- You" McCain did in his failed 2008 presidential campaign.
Mrs. Fiorina's time at Hewlett-Packard was fraught with controversy and she was eventually forced out of her position.
A really major negative in my book is that after that campaign, she left California and is based in Virginia. In my serious opinion, to make any other run at office here in California, she needed to stay. That would seriously hurt her in a Republican primary.
And Mrs. Fiorina is also being bitten by the presidential bug.
But really, what can she offer in a presidential run? She lost her only serious campaign for office. But she could redeem herself with a move to run again for the senate from California.
I don't think that she will go for another chance to represent the voters of California.
The third potential candidate is one that I personally want to see get in this race and that is congressman Tom McClintock, a man that has run for statewide office before and while he lost, both times were by very close margins.
Thank God Almighty!
We in California will not be represented in the United States senate in 2017 by the most incompetent person elected in my lifetime.
That is the good news.
The bad news is that this is California and it is a better than 60-40 chance that the Democrats will retain the seat. If that is the case, one hopes that the person elected is better than the dim bulb that has been Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
Before I go one, I must remind you of how Sen. Ma'am got her name on this blog.
On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, during a hearing with Brigadier General Michael Walsh of the Army Corps of Engineers, he made a horrific mistake. Brig. Gen. Walsh called the senator such a foul name, I'm not sure that I can write it on a family blog.
He called her ma'am.
OH THE HORROR! HOW DARE HE USE SUCH LANGUAGE IN A SENATE HEARING! RIGHT TO BARBARA BOXER'S FACE!
Well, Barbara Boxer put this eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, awful man in his place:
“Do me a favor, can you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am’?” It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it. Thank you.”
Take THAT you, you brigadier general!
So, due to Barbara Boxer's hypersensitivity and self-importance, this blogger refers to her as Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
Now on to the meat of this post.
While the task is daunting for the Republican party to snatch that seat from the Democrats, nothing is impossible.
So, who are some possible candidates that can do the job?
First on the potential list is one that has indicated he wants to run for another office. But could he be convinced to lower his expectations and settle for a senate seat?
Well that would be Mitt Romney, of course.
I know, I know, Mr. Romney wants to be president and he really thinks he can do it in this third time. But for the moment, in a reality burst, Mr. Romney says, "Ahh, I can't really win this president thing. Maybe I can serve in another way. I'm now pretty California connected. More than Hillary Clinton was when she carpetbagged her way to a New York senate seat. Maybe I'll give this senate run a try."
If he does, the positives are that he fits the overall California electorate. While a center-right politician, in his one term as governor of Massachusetts, he governed in the same manner. As conservative as one could when the state legislature and senate are two-thirds Democratic. Oh, and he ran for the senate before, you know.
In 1994, while the Republican landslide that saw the GOP take the house from the Democrats after 40 years, Mr. Romney decided to take on the legendary senator, Edward "Teddy" Kennedy. Mr. Romney did not win that race, but it was the closest a Republican had gotten or ever did get to Sen. Kennedy. Mr. Romney lost the race by a large 58% to 41% percent margin. OK, that is a wide margin, but the fact is he did well in his first political foray.
So, Mr. Romney does have the experience of running a campaign for the senate.
Also important is that he would have the kind of money to run a competent, issue-oriented campaign against any Democrat.
But the downside is that counting that senate campaign, Mr. Romney is a three-time loser. And that is a hard thing to shake.
I still hope that Mr. Romney considers a run.
Another potential candidate is one that has ran before, in fact in the last campaign against Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
That would be Carly Fiorina who lost to Sen. Ma'am Boxer by a 52% to 42% margin. That is one of Sen. Ma'am Boxer's largest margins of victory.
Mrs. Fiorina did have a coherent platform and spent a lot of money to lose in the end. She would do so if she thought that she had a decent chance again.
And being a woman does help somewhat. She comes off more polished as our senior senator, Dianne Feinstein. She is not abrasive and would certainly never dress down a member of the armed forces unnecessarily.
Mrs. Fiorina has real-world business experience in being the CEO of technology giant Hewlett-Packard.
But her negatives are very strong.
Obviously, she ended up losing the senate race to Sen. Ma'am Boxer. In a year Republicans did well across the United States, Mrs. Fiorina spent a lot of money to end up with 42% of the vote. One way to look at it is she did five points better than Sen. John "F--- You" McCain did in his failed 2008 presidential campaign.
Mrs. Fiorina's time at Hewlett-Packard was fraught with controversy and she was eventually forced out of her position.
A really major negative in my book is that after that campaign, she left California and is based in Virginia. In my serious opinion, to make any other run at office here in California, she needed to stay. That would seriously hurt her in a Republican primary.
And Mrs. Fiorina is also being bitten by the presidential bug.
But really, what can she offer in a presidential run? She lost her only serious campaign for office. But she could redeem herself with a move to run again for the senate from California.
I don't think that she will go for another chance to represent the voters of California.
The third potential candidate is one that I personally want to see get in this race and that is congressman Tom McClintock, a man that has run for statewide office before and while he lost, both times were by very close margins.
Mr. McClintock is no stranger to politics in California. He has successfully ran for and won in the state assembly and senate and in congress.
However, Mr. McClintock has not been so lucky in three statewide elections that he ran in.
In 1994, he ran for state controller and lost to Kathleen Connell by a slim 48%-46% margin. Other candidates received six percent of the vote.
In 2002, Mr. McClintock tried again for the controller job and he lost in a closer and more heartbreaking loss to Steve Westley. Only 16,811 votes separated the top two candidates as Mr. Westley gained 45.4% of the vote to Mr. McClintock's 45.1%.
In the 2003 gubernatorial recall election, Mr. McClintock finished in third place behind the eventual winner, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger and the then Lt. Governor, Cruz Bustamante. In that election Mr. McClintock only received 14% the vote. Out of about 130 candidates.
But the loss that grates on me is his loss campaigning for Lt. Governor in 2006.
In that election, Gov. Benedict Arnold was already assured of winning reelection. And Mr. McClintock had a good chance of defeating Democrat John Garamendi. But Gov. Benedict Arnold did not campaign for any Republican candidate down ticket. As is wont for most moderate Republicans, they look out for themselves. And in what was a bad year for Republicans, Mr. McClintock went down to defeat losing to Mr. Garamendi, 49% to 42%.
The positive is that Mr. McClintock has ran statewide elections. He has consistently received over 40% of the vote each time.
For conservatives, he is consistent and true to what he believes in. He does not waver and is not a flame thrower in his conservatism. He is a traditional values conservative, but has never made it an issue in any of his statewide campaigns. Out of the three candidates I have chosen to highlight here, Mr. McClintock is the solid conservative.
But the obvious negative is that Mr. McClintock has lost every statewide race he has run. And in the last go round in 2006, his percentage of votes went down to 42%. And that seems to be the ceiling for the GOP in statewide elections for the most part.
Again, I have not said it would be an easy climb for any Republican to win Ma'am Barbara Boxer's seat. But one thing to remember that while Californian's were voting for Republicans at the presidential and gubernatorial level, they were also voting the late Sen. Alan Cranston, a liberal Dem if there ever was one, back to office with solid numbers.
All three of the candidates do have baggage in different ways. Yet they all have certain appeal that can possibly pull them over the top. I do beleive that Mr. McClintock would please us conservatives and thus the volunteers would will get excited to support a candidate. And while Mrs. Fiorina and Mr. Romney might not excite a lot of the grassroots, they could run against the Democrat establishment in California.
Nothing is ever easy for the California GOP these days. But a chance to take a Democrat seat has to be tantalizing to leadership. There will not be an incumbent so it is going to be a race for someone new on both sides. But make no mistakes. They will be "professional" politicians on both sides.
The most exciting thing is that in two years at this time, no matter what, there will not be Sen. Ma'am Barbara Boxer.
Monday, November 03, 2014
Will The GOP See Any Success In California
While the Republican party will enjoy very good success tomorrow evening, there are some precincts in the Union that the GOP will not make a huge wave and one of those places is California.
There are many reasons for this.
The most obvious reason is that the current governor, Democrat Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, built a $21,000,000 war chest that most respectable Republicans looked at and figured that they had no chance to compete against such a boatload of cash on hand for Gov. Brown. And the Republican candidate, Neel Kashkari, literally swooped in at the last possible moment to challenge state assemblyman Tim Donnelly for the Republican nomination. Because California now has an open, non-partisan primary, the top two finishers go on to the general election. Mr. Kashkari finished second and is the patsy against Gov. Brown. A good night for Mr. Kashkari will be if he can match the numbers of the last GOP gubernatorial candidate, Meg Whitman as far as votes. Mrs. Whitman spent about $140,000,000 to lose to Gov. Brown and attain 41% of the vote. If Mr. Kashkari can equal that at the limited money he has, he will have spent his money wisely. If he gets higher numbers, its gravy and shows that the GOP can be competitive in the once Golden State.
So, California has seven "constitutional" offices which means that those offices the voters decide. After the governor, there is the Lt. Governor. Can the GOP win this one? Probably not as Democrat incumbent Gavin Newsome should have similar numbers as Gov. Brown. What about Attorney General? Nope, for Democrat Kamala Harris has actually been an adequate A. G. for a a Democrat. Again, she will ride the Brown coattails. Mr. RVFTLC, is there any damn office left? Why I'm glad you asked. There are a couple of offices in which the GOP has a fighting chance. The first one is for Controller. The GOP candidate is the Republican mayor of Fresno, Ashley Swearingen. She finished first in the open primary and is facing off against Democrat No. Cal., Betty Yee. This appears to be a close enough race where Mrs. Swearingen can pull it off. I think that it will be close. If Mrs. Swearingen wins, she will be de facto leader of the California GOP. Even if Pete Petersen should win the Secretary of State, more on that shortly, Mrs. Swearingen will be the one seen as the leader. Now Mr. Petersen finished an agonizing close second in the open primary. Most analysts think this is also a winnable race for the GOP. If the GOP wins one or both, it will be seen as a sign the state GOP is making a comeback.
Another sign the California GOP would be showing signs of a comeback is to gain seats in the state legislature and even in the delegation to congress.
Currently, there are 15 Republican members of the 53 member congressional delegation. The state assembly has 24 Republicans and the state senate has 12 GOPers.
The state legislature is where the GOP needs to make some gains. Because the Democrats had a 2/3rd majority in both houses, a super majority, they did not need any GOP input on any legislation. But three senators have been embroiled in legal battles and are either out of the state senate or "on leave". That reduces the total number of senators from 40 to 37, thus ending that super majority. This maybe a tough hill to climb, but the GOP can get three seats and that will end the super majority when the state senate is back to 40 full members. The Democrats will still be in control, but the number will be 25 to 15. Considering there are only 12 members now, three more will make a huge difference. The same holds true in the state assembly. The magic number for the GOP is to hold their seats and win three more to bring their number to 27. That kills the super majority in the assembly. But again, the Democrats will be in charge 53 to 27.
O.K., I am the first to admit that seems to be small ball. And it is. But considering the Democrat juggernaut of 2010, to at least have a minority that puts something on money bills and gets some Democrat concessions is a start.
So what about congress?
One race to watch for is the 52nd congressional district. That pits incumbent Democrat congressman Scott Peters against Republican Carl DeMaio, the man that should have been mayor of San Diego. This is high on the GOP radar and money has been spent hand over fist on this one. It appears that this is in the too close to call category. A Republican win here will be a series of firsts. One, Mr. De Maio will be the first homosexual elected to congress as a Republican. Second, he will be the first to be married to a man under California law. Some very conservative groups are either sitting this one out or supporting the Democrat. Of course this being California, it is a big mistake for not supporting DeMaio. He's wrong on some of these issues, but he will be a good, reliable Republican vote. Another race is in the 33rd district in which is a open seat as Democrat Henry Waxman is retiring (thank Almighty God!). The Democrat is state senator Ted Lieu and the Republican is Elan Carr, a prosecutor in the Los Angeles county district attorney's office. Mr. Carr won a strong second place to face Sen. Lieu and is in contention. The district was redrawn in 2010 and is, surprisingly become a competitive district. That is why the GOP is helping Mr. Carr try to win here. Imagine the 40-year reign of Henry Waxman ends with the GOP winning his seat. Eternal justice if there ever was any!
Unlike 2010, the Democrats are not exactly pumped up for this election. After all the top of the ticket is already a winner in Gov. Brown. It's just a question of how badly Mr. Kashkari will be beaten by.
While the GOP is not in the greatest shape, the voters will have more motivation to actually vote. Although only 28% of registered voters, this maybe an election that they make inroads with decline to state (independent) voters. If that happens, then the party is on the comeback.
The Republican wave tomorrow night will be a good sized ripple in California. But will it be a strong enough ripple to help a beleaguered state GOP? I think it will be a better night than 2010 for state Republicans.
There are many reasons for this.
The most obvious reason is that the current governor, Democrat Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, built a $21,000,000 war chest that most respectable Republicans looked at and figured that they had no chance to compete against such a boatload of cash on hand for Gov. Brown. And the Republican candidate, Neel Kashkari, literally swooped in at the last possible moment to challenge state assemblyman Tim Donnelly for the Republican nomination. Because California now has an open, non-partisan primary, the top two finishers go on to the general election. Mr. Kashkari finished second and is the patsy against Gov. Brown. A good night for Mr. Kashkari will be if he can match the numbers of the last GOP gubernatorial candidate, Meg Whitman as far as votes. Mrs. Whitman spent about $140,000,000 to lose to Gov. Brown and attain 41% of the vote. If Mr. Kashkari can equal that at the limited money he has, he will have spent his money wisely. If he gets higher numbers, its gravy and shows that the GOP can be competitive in the once Golden State.
So, California has seven "constitutional" offices which means that those offices the voters decide. After the governor, there is the Lt. Governor. Can the GOP win this one? Probably not as Democrat incumbent Gavin Newsome should have similar numbers as Gov. Brown. What about Attorney General? Nope, for Democrat Kamala Harris has actually been an adequate A. G. for a a Democrat. Again, she will ride the Brown coattails. Mr. RVFTLC, is there any damn office left? Why I'm glad you asked. There are a couple of offices in which the GOP has a fighting chance. The first one is for Controller. The GOP candidate is the Republican mayor of Fresno, Ashley Swearingen. She finished first in the open primary and is facing off against Democrat No. Cal., Betty Yee. This appears to be a close enough race where Mrs. Swearingen can pull it off. I think that it will be close. If Mrs. Swearingen wins, she will be de facto leader of the California GOP. Even if Pete Petersen should win the Secretary of State, more on that shortly, Mrs. Swearingen will be the one seen as the leader. Now Mr. Petersen finished an agonizing close second in the open primary. Most analysts think this is also a winnable race for the GOP. If the GOP wins one or both, it will be seen as a sign the state GOP is making a comeback.
Another sign the California GOP would be showing signs of a comeback is to gain seats in the state legislature and even in the delegation to congress.
Currently, there are 15 Republican members of the 53 member congressional delegation. The state assembly has 24 Republicans and the state senate has 12 GOPers.
The state legislature is where the GOP needs to make some gains. Because the Democrats had a 2/3rd majority in both houses, a super majority, they did not need any GOP input on any legislation. But three senators have been embroiled in legal battles and are either out of the state senate or "on leave". That reduces the total number of senators from 40 to 37, thus ending that super majority. This maybe a tough hill to climb, but the GOP can get three seats and that will end the super majority when the state senate is back to 40 full members. The Democrats will still be in control, but the number will be 25 to 15. Considering there are only 12 members now, three more will make a huge difference. The same holds true in the state assembly. The magic number for the GOP is to hold their seats and win three more to bring their number to 27. That kills the super majority in the assembly. But again, the Democrats will be in charge 53 to 27.
O.K., I am the first to admit that seems to be small ball. And it is. But considering the Democrat juggernaut of 2010, to at least have a minority that puts something on money bills and gets some Democrat concessions is a start.
So what about congress?
One race to watch for is the 52nd congressional district. That pits incumbent Democrat congressman Scott Peters against Republican Carl DeMaio, the man that should have been mayor of San Diego. This is high on the GOP radar and money has been spent hand over fist on this one. It appears that this is in the too close to call category. A Republican win here will be a series of firsts. One, Mr. De Maio will be the first homosexual elected to congress as a Republican. Second, he will be the first to be married to a man under California law. Some very conservative groups are either sitting this one out or supporting the Democrat. Of course this being California, it is a big mistake for not supporting DeMaio. He's wrong on some of these issues, but he will be a good, reliable Republican vote. Another race is in the 33rd district in which is a open seat as Democrat Henry Waxman is retiring (thank Almighty God!). The Democrat is state senator Ted Lieu and the Republican is Elan Carr, a prosecutor in the Los Angeles county district attorney's office. Mr. Carr won a strong second place to face Sen. Lieu and is in contention. The district was redrawn in 2010 and is, surprisingly become a competitive district. That is why the GOP is helping Mr. Carr try to win here. Imagine the 40-year reign of Henry Waxman ends with the GOP winning his seat. Eternal justice if there ever was any!
Unlike 2010, the Democrats are not exactly pumped up for this election. After all the top of the ticket is already a winner in Gov. Brown. It's just a question of how badly Mr. Kashkari will be beaten by.
While the GOP is not in the greatest shape, the voters will have more motivation to actually vote. Although only 28% of registered voters, this maybe an election that they make inroads with decline to state (independent) voters. If that happens, then the party is on the comeback.
The Republican wave tomorrow night will be a good sized ripple in California. But will it be a strong enough ripple to help a beleaguered state GOP? I think it will be a better night than 2010 for state Republicans.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
A Busy News Day
WOW!
Today there is lot in the news that I want to comment on.
The re-arrest of Meriam Ibrahim, the Sudanese Christian woman convicted of being a heretic for not becoming Islamic and was going to be thrashed and beheaded. Now it appears that they have the husband too. Something very suspicious about that.
There are some big primary elections today with implications for both the Democrat and Republican parties. Watch Mississippi for the Republican senate race. New York state for the result of the 13th congressional district primary between 22-term incumbent Charles Rangel and Hispanic state senator Adriano Espalliat. In Oklahoma is a tight race between congressman James Lankford and former speaker of the state house of representatives, T.W. Shannon. Mr. Shannon is very supported by the Tea Party but Mr. Lankford could get a lot of the religious conservatives' vote. To say the least, it will be an interesting election night.
An attempt to get a ballot innititive here in California to divide California not into two states but six states brings out the low-information voter en mass as I will prove here.
Lots to write about and I will give each one the individual attention they deserve.
Today there is lot in the news that I want to comment on.
The re-arrest of Meriam Ibrahim, the Sudanese Christian woman convicted of being a heretic for not becoming Islamic and was going to be thrashed and beheaded. Now it appears that they have the husband too. Something very suspicious about that.
There are some big primary elections today with implications for both the Democrat and Republican parties. Watch Mississippi for the Republican senate race. New York state for the result of the 13th congressional district primary between 22-term incumbent Charles Rangel and Hispanic state senator Adriano Espalliat. In Oklahoma is a tight race between congressman James Lankford and former speaker of the state house of representatives, T.W. Shannon. Mr. Shannon is very supported by the Tea Party but Mr. Lankford could get a lot of the religious conservatives' vote. To say the least, it will be an interesting election night.
An attempt to get a ballot innititive here in California to divide California not into two states but six states brings out the low-information voter en mass as I will prove here.
Lots to write about and I will give each one the individual attention they deserve.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Cali GOP May Be Making A Comeback
Yeah, I know, you think that I am just having one of those California Dreamin' moments when I write that the Republican party in this once Golden State maybe making a small comeback.
But I am very serious.
One of the reasons is while the state-wide turnout in last Tuesday's primary was only a rip-roaring 18%, the reality is that there was no contentious race for the Democrats for governor. That kept Democrat turnout way down. There was a pretty contentious Republican race for governor between state assemblyman Tim Donnelly and businessman Neel Kashkari and that may have driven more Republicans to the polls.
John Phillips in the Orange County Register makes an interesting point about the Republican race and why Mr. Donnelly did not win the race for second place on the all-party ballot and the majority of Republican votes.
If your barely win your home county, and your opponent swamps you in his home county, makes it really hard to win the race.
That is what happened to Mr. Donnelly. He basically tied the votes at 24% a piece. But Mr. Donnelly won the majority of Republican votes in San Bernardino county, his base.
On the other hand, the little-known Mr. Kashkari pounced Mr. Donnelly in his home county, Orange county by 10 points.
That is a bad omen for Mr. Donnelly. And it proved in the end his undoing.
A lot of people think that Mr. Kashkari is but a respectable loser to the current occupant of the governor's office, Democrat Jerry Brown. We shall see on that.
But here is why I think the state party has a chance to make a comeback.
There are a couple of statewide races that are worth watching to see if the GOP can win one or more of the constitutional offices up for grabs this November.
In the race for secretary of state, Democrat Alex Padilla and Republican Pete Petersen ran an essential tie. In fact, as of this writing, only 9,776 votes separate the top two. Both will go on to the November general election.
There is a serious race for state controller and GOP candidate Ashley Swearingen, the mayor of Fresno, is assured to have won the primary. The race is for second place for the November ballot.
Right now, Democrat John Perez is in second place only 1,128 votes ahead of fellow Democrat Betty Lee. Lurking in fourth place is Republican David Evans only 16,577 behind Mr. Perez. And there is still some vote counting to do. If by some chance Mr. Evans can get into second place, it assures the Republicans one constitutional office. But the closeness of the two Democrats could leave a bad taste in the one that eventually is in third place.
One other race that I do think is worth watching is the race for Lt. governor.
The incumbent is Democrat Gavin Newsom. He is the former mayor of San Francisco and has spent most of his time in office mocking the very office he is in.
The Republican second-place finisher is former state chair Ron Nehring.
But as of this writing, Mr. Newsom is below 50% of the total vote. It is marginal at 49.8%, but still it shows that he may be vulnerable and if Mr. Nehring can make a good case that Mr. Newson does not even care about being Lt. governor and is just buying time to run for governor in 2018, I do believe that he has a shot.
Some key congressional races to watch starts with the 52nd district in which is probably a swing district. The current congressman, Democrat Scott Peters, won in the 2012 Obama election year. This year he did win the top spot in the open primary. But he did not clear 50%. He has barely cleared 42%. The second place finisher is one of the more interesting choices and that is Republican Carl DeMaio. Mr. DeMaio's current claim to fame is that he is the candidate that lost the 2012 San Diego mayor election to Democrat disgrace, Filthy Bob Filner. But Mr. DeMaio's strong showing in coming in second with 35% of the vote will make this a race to watch. And it could make history for if Mr. DeMaio wins, he will be the first openly gay Republican elected to the House.
In the 25th district, it will be an all GOP affair as former state assemblyman Tony Strickland will take on current state senator Steve Knight. Call this a safe GOP seat.
An outlier could be the 33rd district which is the seat of long-time lefty windbag Henry The Mole Waxman. The Democrat field was so divided that a Republican finished first overall. GOP candidate Elan Carr will take on Democrat Ted Lieu. I think that this is an outlier, but if Democrat also-rans are still bitter, it could help Mr. Carr.
A better chance for Republicans is the 24th district, current Democrat Lois Capp's home district. It appears that, again as of this writing, Republican Chris Mitchum will try to unseat Mrs. Capps. Turnout was actually strong for both parties here and it could be a close enough race that Republicans may pull off an upset.
The Republicans will not come anywhere close to winning the state senate or assembly, but they do not have to.
All they need to do is win enough seats to kill the Democrats super-majority in both houses. And with three Democrat state senators on leave due to serious legal issues, it is very likely that it will happen.
It may not seem like much but the reality is the party has been on the mat especially in the last two presidential elections. Neither John McCain or Mitt Romney could get 38% of the statewide vote. And if you want to count the 2010 election, Meg Whitman ran for governor and racked up 41% of the vote. Carly Fiorina ran for senate and got 42% of the vote.
If Mr. Kashkari can at least get a little bit closer that Mrs. Whitman, maybe even getting 45% of the vote, that is progress. If one of the three other Republicans can win the races I highlighted, that will be a huge shot in the arm and begin a bench for the state GOP. If the Republicans can get some of the congressional seats back lost in 2012, that will be a sign of comeback. If the Republicans can win enough state assembly and state senate seats and deny the Democrats a super-majority, that will be a huge sign that the party is going to be back and relevant in Sacramento.
These are great possibilities and one can only hope the California Republican party can make some headway in the Democrat stranglehold. For a one-party state is not good for California or any other state in the Republic.
But I am very serious.
One of the reasons is while the state-wide turnout in last Tuesday's primary was only a rip-roaring 18%, the reality is that there was no contentious race for the Democrats for governor. That kept Democrat turnout way down. There was a pretty contentious Republican race for governor between state assemblyman Tim Donnelly and businessman Neel Kashkari and that may have driven more Republicans to the polls.
John Phillips in the Orange County Register makes an interesting point about the Republican race and why Mr. Donnelly did not win the race for second place on the all-party ballot and the majority of Republican votes.
If your barely win your home county, and your opponent swamps you in his home county, makes it really hard to win the race.
That is what happened to Mr. Donnelly. He basically tied the votes at 24% a piece. But Mr. Donnelly won the majority of Republican votes in San Bernardino county, his base.
On the other hand, the little-known Mr. Kashkari pounced Mr. Donnelly in his home county, Orange county by 10 points.
That is a bad omen for Mr. Donnelly. And it proved in the end his undoing.
A lot of people think that Mr. Kashkari is but a respectable loser to the current occupant of the governor's office, Democrat Jerry Brown. We shall see on that.
But here is why I think the state party has a chance to make a comeback.
There are a couple of statewide races that are worth watching to see if the GOP can win one or more of the constitutional offices up for grabs this November.
In the race for secretary of state, Democrat Alex Padilla and Republican Pete Petersen ran an essential tie. In fact, as of this writing, only 9,776 votes separate the top two. Both will go on to the November general election.
There is a serious race for state controller and GOP candidate Ashley Swearingen, the mayor of Fresno, is assured to have won the primary. The race is for second place for the November ballot.
Right now, Democrat John Perez is in second place only 1,128 votes ahead of fellow Democrat Betty Lee. Lurking in fourth place is Republican David Evans only 16,577 behind Mr. Perez. And there is still some vote counting to do. If by some chance Mr. Evans can get into second place, it assures the Republicans one constitutional office. But the closeness of the two Democrats could leave a bad taste in the one that eventually is in third place.
One other race that I do think is worth watching is the race for Lt. governor.
The incumbent is Democrat Gavin Newsom. He is the former mayor of San Francisco and has spent most of his time in office mocking the very office he is in.
The Republican second-place finisher is former state chair Ron Nehring.
But as of this writing, Mr. Newsom is below 50% of the total vote. It is marginal at 49.8%, but still it shows that he may be vulnerable and if Mr. Nehring can make a good case that Mr. Newson does not even care about being Lt. governor and is just buying time to run for governor in 2018, I do believe that he has a shot.
Some key congressional races to watch starts with the 52nd district in which is probably a swing district. The current congressman, Democrat Scott Peters, won in the 2012 Obama election year. This year he did win the top spot in the open primary. But he did not clear 50%. He has barely cleared 42%. The second place finisher is one of the more interesting choices and that is Republican Carl DeMaio. Mr. DeMaio's current claim to fame is that he is the candidate that lost the 2012 San Diego mayor election to Democrat disgrace, Filthy Bob Filner. But Mr. DeMaio's strong showing in coming in second with 35% of the vote will make this a race to watch. And it could make history for if Mr. DeMaio wins, he will be the first openly gay Republican elected to the House.
In the 25th district, it will be an all GOP affair as former state assemblyman Tony Strickland will take on current state senator Steve Knight. Call this a safe GOP seat.
An outlier could be the 33rd district which is the seat of long-time lefty windbag Henry The Mole Waxman. The Democrat field was so divided that a Republican finished first overall. GOP candidate Elan Carr will take on Democrat Ted Lieu. I think that this is an outlier, but if Democrat also-rans are still bitter, it could help Mr. Carr.
A better chance for Republicans is the 24th district, current Democrat Lois Capp's home district. It appears that, again as of this writing, Republican Chris Mitchum will try to unseat Mrs. Capps. Turnout was actually strong for both parties here and it could be a close enough race that Republicans may pull off an upset.
The Republicans will not come anywhere close to winning the state senate or assembly, but they do not have to.
All they need to do is win enough seats to kill the Democrats super-majority in both houses. And with three Democrat state senators on leave due to serious legal issues, it is very likely that it will happen.
It may not seem like much but the reality is the party has been on the mat especially in the last two presidential elections. Neither John McCain or Mitt Romney could get 38% of the statewide vote. And if you want to count the 2010 election, Meg Whitman ran for governor and racked up 41% of the vote. Carly Fiorina ran for senate and got 42% of the vote.
If Mr. Kashkari can at least get a little bit closer that Mrs. Whitman, maybe even getting 45% of the vote, that is progress. If one of the three other Republicans can win the races I highlighted, that will be a huge shot in the arm and begin a bench for the state GOP. If the Republicans can get some of the congressional seats back lost in 2012, that will be a sign of comeback. If the Republicans can win enough state assembly and state senate seats and deny the Democrats a super-majority, that will be a huge sign that the party is going to be back and relevant in Sacramento.
These are great possibilities and one can only hope the California Republican party can make some headway in the Democrat stranglehold. For a one-party state is not good for California or any other state in the Republic.
Sunday, June 08, 2014
Yes, I Voted For Tim Donnelly For California Governor This Past Tuesday
Oh, I am now probably the only one to make this admission, but yes, I did vote for California assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia) for the Republican nomination for governor.
Mr. Donnelly was well on his way to being the Republican standard-bearer this November against the current governor, Democrat Jerry Brown.
And had Mr. Donnelly won the GOP nomination, he would have lost, and lost badly.
The reason that Mr. Donnelly is not the GOP standard-bearer is summed up in two words.
Neel Kashkari.
Mr. Kashkari is not a household name in California politics. And really, neither is Mr. Donnelly. But Mr. Kashkari came in late to be the moderate great hope in wresting the nomination from the clutches of the strong conservative Mr. Donnelly.
Before I explain why I voted for Mr. Donnelly over Mr. Kashkari, let me explain why I could not vote for Mr. Kashkari now.
Mr. Kashkari, IMO, biggest problem is that he essentially was one of the leading figures in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP.
Why is TARP so bad?
Because it is essentially a bailout of big banks that got in trouble for primarily signing off on many, many bad loans essentially to people to buy homes. People that, regrettably, should not have been encouraged to buy a home in the first place. Because of this, the federal government bailed out big banks and forced some to merge with others.
Ever heard of Washington Mutual savings bank?
That was my bank when the crap hit the fan back in 2008. WAMU, as it was better known, was knee-deep in the mortgage problem. To cut to the chase, WAMU filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the feds made a marriage of sorts by merging their assets with JP Morgan Chase bank. WAMU is no more and I am now a customer of Chase.
And to top off his helping craft the TARP scheme, Mr. Kashkari also supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, also known as EESA. That is essentially companion legislation to TARP.
Bottom line is this.
Mr. Kashkari believed that the federal government had to save the American banking industry.
I, and many conservative and Republicans did not. I should point out that even some Democrats were not supportive of the legislation.
Yet in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Kashkari said that he was a "free-market Republican."
Really?
A free-market Republican would never have done what Mr. Kashkari did to be the power behind the largest government bailout ever. A free-market Republican, note he did not say conservative, would have let the chips fall where they may. Yes, the economy would take a large hit. But new banks would have emerged from the damage that at a level they themselves created.
So, I find Mr. Kashkari would not have a problem using big government to obtain a certain outcome. Something that a conservative Republican would not.
Yes, Mr. Kashkari is very much a "libertarian" on the left's two favorite social issues.
Mr. Kashkari supports same-sex marriage and abortion.
And just to infuriate people like myself, Mr. Kashkari also so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Where have I heard this before? Where, oh where?
Ahh, that would be the former governor of the once Golden State, one "Republican" Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
My problems with Mr. Kashkari is that he is essentially another Gov. Benedict Arnold and would not be all that different from the current occupant of the governor's office, Gov. Brown.
So, why would I vote for Mr. Donnelly, a certain loser in November?
Some of it is that he is the devil I know.
Basically, Mr. Donnelly is a one-issue kind of legislator. And the issue that he is heavily involved in is illegal immigration.
Mr. Donnelly cut his teeth in the so-called Minuteman movement of the mid-2000s. They were citizen volunteer patrols along the United States-Mexico border. They were controversial because some members bordered on being outright racists. But most who were members and or supporters are not racists. They are concerned about the problem of illegal immigration and the then George W. Bush administration lack of control on the Southern border.
Regrettably, they have been right all the way along about the damage illegal immigration has done especially along the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Mr. Donnelly rode his credentials and took on an embattled Republican assemblyman, Anthony Adams, and defeated him in the last closed party primary in 2010 and won election to the assembly with 57% of the vote. Mr. Donnelly won reelection in 2012 as well.
On most issues, Mr. Donnelly is standard conservative. For lower taxes, less government regulation. Against same-sex marriage and abortion on demand and so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Part of why in the end I daubed the ink blot on Mr. Donnelly's name on the ballot is that I find him to be a fighter. somebody that does have a set of beliefs about government and it's proper role in society. Someone not afraid to take on Democrats as well as even some fellow Republicans.
Mr. Donnelly also showed how a shoe-string campaign can be done and almost successful.
Here is a big difference between the two men.
Mr. Donnelly announced that he was seeking the GOP nomination on January 22, 2013. Mr. Kashkari announced his intentions on January 21, 2014, almost a full year later. Mr. Donnelly was busy trying to get support from all over California and of course among Republican rank-and-file voters and the activists that any candidate needs to work for the eventual candidate. Mr. Donnelly used the internet to promote his candidacy and this internet ad gave a lot of publicity for his campaign:
OK, maybe citing Mrs. Donnelly as the sexist girl in California may have been over the top in the polite circles of politics, but the point is, Mr. Donnelly got a lot of free publicity.
Mr. Donnelly was racking up endorsements from many county GOP committees, including the Los Angeles county party.
But, in a telling sign, the California Republican party convention in March did not endorse either Mr. Donnelly or Mr. Kashkari. In the past election in 2012, the state GOP endorsed candidates in the first "open primary" since passage of an innitive in 2010 that ended closed party primaries.
Mr. Donnelly was doing very old-school retail politics the best he could on limited funds and not gaining a lot once Mr. Kashkari entered the race in January.
Mr. Kashkari, again IMHO, came in late because the establishment could not bear the thought of losing to Gov. Brown by 30 points. I mean, even the guru himself, Karl Rove, made the lamest "endorsement" of Mr. Kashkari with this awe-inspiring quote:
"If the Republicans have to pick someone to lose to Jerry Brown, they’d be stupid not to pick Kashkari."
To people like Mr. Rove and his ilk, we California Republicans should lose, but gracefully, to Gov. Brown.
And yes, almost all of Mr. Kashkari's endorsements were from the usual establishment types such as Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, et al. But, congressman Darrel Issa, a strong conservative, endorsed Mr. Kashkari late enough in the game that probably helped him and made some fence-sitting potential Donnelly voters to switch and vote for the moderate Mr. Kashkari.
In the end, Mr. Kashkari did win the California Republican gubernatorial nomination in the open primary by finishing with 20% of the vote over Mr. Donnelly's 15%. That is good enough for second place in the open primary and he earned the right to fight with Gov. Brown in November.
That does not sound like much but if you limit the vote both men had among those who voted for a Republican candidate, both have decent numbers.
As of this writing, 1,467,947 voted Republican in the open primary. In and of itself it is a good number as not many more voted Democrat in the open primary. Of that number, Mr. Kashkari got 48% of the vote and Mr. Donnelly got 37%. The remaining 15% was scattered among four other candidates including a convicted sex-offender. That is another post in and of itself.
While I will end up voting for Mr. Kashkari in November, there could be some hard feelings that he needs to heal before then especially among conservatives and Donnelly supporters.
Look, I would vote for either of my two dogs over Gov. Brown. While I may not be Mr. Kashkari's most important backer, he will be a marginal improvement over Gov. Brown.
But I was able to vote for Tim Donnelly in the primary this past Tuesday because I do believe that the conservative wing of the party deserves to be heard and I helped that cause.
Mr. Donnelly was well on his way to being the Republican standard-bearer this November against the current governor, Democrat Jerry Brown.
And had Mr. Donnelly won the GOP nomination, he would have lost, and lost badly.
The reason that Mr. Donnelly is not the GOP standard-bearer is summed up in two words.
Neel Kashkari.
Mr. Kashkari is not a household name in California politics. And really, neither is Mr. Donnelly. But Mr. Kashkari came in late to be the moderate great hope in wresting the nomination from the clutches of the strong conservative Mr. Donnelly.
Before I explain why I voted for Mr. Donnelly over Mr. Kashkari, let me explain why I could not vote for Mr. Kashkari now.
Mr. Kashkari, IMO, biggest problem is that he essentially was one of the leading figures in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP.
Why is TARP so bad?
Because it is essentially a bailout of big banks that got in trouble for primarily signing off on many, many bad loans essentially to people to buy homes. People that, regrettably, should not have been encouraged to buy a home in the first place. Because of this, the federal government bailed out big banks and forced some to merge with others.
Ever heard of Washington Mutual savings bank?
That was my bank when the crap hit the fan back in 2008. WAMU, as it was better known, was knee-deep in the mortgage problem. To cut to the chase, WAMU filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the feds made a marriage of sorts by merging their assets with JP Morgan Chase bank. WAMU is no more and I am now a customer of Chase.
And to top off his helping craft the TARP scheme, Mr. Kashkari also supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, also known as EESA. That is essentially companion legislation to TARP.
Bottom line is this.
Mr. Kashkari believed that the federal government had to save the American banking industry.
I, and many conservative and Republicans did not. I should point out that even some Democrats were not supportive of the legislation.
Yet in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Kashkari said that he was a "free-market Republican."
Really?
A free-market Republican would never have done what Mr. Kashkari did to be the power behind the largest government bailout ever. A free-market Republican, note he did not say conservative, would have let the chips fall where they may. Yes, the economy would take a large hit. But new banks would have emerged from the damage that at a level they themselves created.
So, I find Mr. Kashkari would not have a problem using big government to obtain a certain outcome. Something that a conservative Republican would not.
Yes, Mr. Kashkari is very much a "libertarian" on the left's two favorite social issues.
Mr. Kashkari supports same-sex marriage and abortion.
And just to infuriate people like myself, Mr. Kashkari also so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Where have I heard this before? Where, oh where?
Ahh, that would be the former governor of the once Golden State, one "Republican" Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
My problems with Mr. Kashkari is that he is essentially another Gov. Benedict Arnold and would not be all that different from the current occupant of the governor's office, Gov. Brown.
So, why would I vote for Mr. Donnelly, a certain loser in November?
Some of it is that he is the devil I know.
Basically, Mr. Donnelly is a one-issue kind of legislator. And the issue that he is heavily involved in is illegal immigration.
Mr. Donnelly cut his teeth in the so-called Minuteman movement of the mid-2000s. They were citizen volunteer patrols along the United States-Mexico border. They were controversial because some members bordered on being outright racists. But most who were members and or supporters are not racists. They are concerned about the problem of illegal immigration and the then George W. Bush administration lack of control on the Southern border.
Regrettably, they have been right all the way along about the damage illegal immigration has done especially along the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Mr. Donnelly rode his credentials and took on an embattled Republican assemblyman, Anthony Adams, and defeated him in the last closed party primary in 2010 and won election to the assembly with 57% of the vote. Mr. Donnelly won reelection in 2012 as well.
On most issues, Mr. Donnelly is standard conservative. For lower taxes, less government regulation. Against same-sex marriage and abortion on demand and so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Part of why in the end I daubed the ink blot on Mr. Donnelly's name on the ballot is that I find him to be a fighter. somebody that does have a set of beliefs about government and it's proper role in society. Someone not afraid to take on Democrats as well as even some fellow Republicans.
Mr. Donnelly also showed how a shoe-string campaign can be done and almost successful.
Here is a big difference between the two men.
Mr. Donnelly announced that he was seeking the GOP nomination on January 22, 2013. Mr. Kashkari announced his intentions on January 21, 2014, almost a full year later. Mr. Donnelly was busy trying to get support from all over California and of course among Republican rank-and-file voters and the activists that any candidate needs to work for the eventual candidate. Mr. Donnelly used the internet to promote his candidacy and this internet ad gave a lot of publicity for his campaign:
OK, maybe citing Mrs. Donnelly as the sexist girl in California may have been over the top in the polite circles of politics, but the point is, Mr. Donnelly got a lot of free publicity.
Mr. Donnelly was racking up endorsements from many county GOP committees, including the Los Angeles county party.
But, in a telling sign, the California Republican party convention in March did not endorse either Mr. Donnelly or Mr. Kashkari. In the past election in 2012, the state GOP endorsed candidates in the first "open primary" since passage of an innitive in 2010 that ended closed party primaries.
Mr. Donnelly was doing very old-school retail politics the best he could on limited funds and not gaining a lot once Mr. Kashkari entered the race in January.
Mr. Kashkari, again IMHO, came in late because the establishment could not bear the thought of losing to Gov. Brown by 30 points. I mean, even the guru himself, Karl Rove, made the lamest "endorsement" of Mr. Kashkari with this awe-inspiring quote:
"If the Republicans have to pick someone to lose to Jerry Brown, they’d be stupid not to pick Kashkari."
To people like Mr. Rove and his ilk, we California Republicans should lose, but gracefully, to Gov. Brown.
And yes, almost all of Mr. Kashkari's endorsements were from the usual establishment types such as Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, et al. But, congressman Darrel Issa, a strong conservative, endorsed Mr. Kashkari late enough in the game that probably helped him and made some fence-sitting potential Donnelly voters to switch and vote for the moderate Mr. Kashkari.
In the end, Mr. Kashkari did win the California Republican gubernatorial nomination in the open primary by finishing with 20% of the vote over Mr. Donnelly's 15%. That is good enough for second place in the open primary and he earned the right to fight with Gov. Brown in November.
That does not sound like much but if you limit the vote both men had among those who voted for a Republican candidate, both have decent numbers.
As of this writing, 1,467,947 voted Republican in the open primary. In and of itself it is a good number as not many more voted Democrat in the open primary. Of that number, Mr. Kashkari got 48% of the vote and Mr. Donnelly got 37%. The remaining 15% was scattered among four other candidates including a convicted sex-offender. That is another post in and of itself.
While I will end up voting for Mr. Kashkari in November, there could be some hard feelings that he needs to heal before then especially among conservatives and Donnelly supporters.
Look, I would vote for either of my two dogs over Gov. Brown. While I may not be Mr. Kashkari's most important backer, he will be a marginal improvement over Gov. Brown.
But I was able to vote for Tim Donnelly in the primary this past Tuesday because I do believe that the conservative wing of the party deserves to be heard and I helped that cause.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Can Republicans Break Through Any State-Wide Office In California?
One office that California Republicans are really going to have a tough time winning statewide is the governor's office.
And since there is no candidate running for Lt. Governor, one has to go down ballot for the seven statewide elected constitutional offices to see hope at the end of the tunnel.
In the latest "non-partisan" Field Poll for governor, the current governor, Jerry Brown, has a commanding 40%-yes 40% lead over the nearest opponent, state assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia), leasing by the numbers 57% to 17%. A couple of other Republicans, Laguna Hills mayor Andrew Blount and businessman Neel Kashkari can't even muster more than five percent of all voters.
In the June primary, all candidates are placed on one ballot with party identification by their name.
And while Gov. Brown has 57% votes of likely voters, it does not look good for Republicans based on his job performance. On that front, Gov. Brown has a 59% popularity rating and only 32% disapprove of his job in office. Only nine percent have no opinion.
So would appear on the surface that Republicans will have a tough time trying to unseat Gov. Brown. But there are several issues that they can highlight and maybe knock some of his popularity down some notches.
One is the issues of water for Central Valley farmers. There is a huge bone that Central Valley farmers have with both Sacramento and Washington. The main issue is regarding water.
Then there is the issue of whether or not we are, as a state, having a water shortage problem. And in another Field Poll on the topic, it shows the dyslexia of the California voter. About 88% of California likely voters do think that there is a serious water shortage in the state. But in regards as to what to do about it, one has to look at things in a regional perspective. Reading the data, there is no question it is the usual battle between the Nor Cals and the So Cals.
Another topic is the "reform" of the California prison system that has, essentially, dumped many state prisoners in county jails. The right candidate can point out the failure of this and how it will lead to more crime. If it has not already.
So now let's look at a down-ticket race.
The race for California state controller.
Here is the surprising nugget from this Field Poll on this race
A Republican woman is leading the field at this point and the Democrat vote is divided between a Nor Cal gal and a So Cal dude, it is a promising sign.
Republican Ashley Swearingen is the current Republican mayor of Fresno, the largest city in the Central Valley with well over 500,000 residents. Her two Democrat opponents are state Board of Equalization (tax board) member Betty Lee and former state assembly speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles). Between those two it is a classic Nor Cal vs. So Cal race. Mrs. Yee is more liberal than Mr. Perez. But that is really in a matter of degree. As far as the race goes, Mrs. Swearingen is leading the race with 28% of the votes. Mrs. Yee is coming in second with 19% of the vote and Mr. Perez with 14% of the votes. The bad news for all candidates is that 38% of voters are undecided. The good news for Mrs. Swearingen is that more than likely she has the Republican vote. Now in this early stage she can try to sway some independent voters and maybe even some Democrats.
In other words, the California GOP may not win the governor's race or the Lt. governor's race, but there are races like state controller that the party needs to consider spending money to win on.
And I think that the Republicans are going to get enough seats in the state senate and assembly to stop the Democrat super-majority. And also will gain congressional seats as well.
So it looks like the California Republican party still has a lot of work to do but there is light at the end of the tunnel.
And since there is no candidate running for Lt. Governor, one has to go down ballot for the seven statewide elected constitutional offices to see hope at the end of the tunnel.
In the latest "non-partisan" Field Poll for governor, the current governor, Jerry Brown, has a commanding 40%-yes 40% lead over the nearest opponent, state assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia), leasing by the numbers 57% to 17%. A couple of other Republicans, Laguna Hills mayor Andrew Blount and businessman Neel Kashkari can't even muster more than five percent of all voters.
In the June primary, all candidates are placed on one ballot with party identification by their name.
And while Gov. Brown has 57% votes of likely voters, it does not look good for Republicans based on his job performance. On that front, Gov. Brown has a 59% popularity rating and only 32% disapprove of his job in office. Only nine percent have no opinion.
So would appear on the surface that Republicans will have a tough time trying to unseat Gov. Brown. But there are several issues that they can highlight and maybe knock some of his popularity down some notches.
One is the issues of water for Central Valley farmers. There is a huge bone that Central Valley farmers have with both Sacramento and Washington. The main issue is regarding water.
Then there is the issue of whether or not we are, as a state, having a water shortage problem. And in another Field Poll on the topic, it shows the dyslexia of the California voter. About 88% of California likely voters do think that there is a serious water shortage in the state. But in regards as to what to do about it, one has to look at things in a regional perspective. Reading the data, there is no question it is the usual battle between the Nor Cals and the So Cals.
Another topic is the "reform" of the California prison system that has, essentially, dumped many state prisoners in county jails. The right candidate can point out the failure of this and how it will lead to more crime. If it has not already.
So now let's look at a down-ticket race.
The race for California state controller.
Here is the surprising nugget from this Field Poll on this race
A Republican woman is leading the field at this point and the Democrat vote is divided between a Nor Cal gal and a So Cal dude, it is a promising sign.
Republican Ashley Swearingen is the current Republican mayor of Fresno, the largest city in the Central Valley with well over 500,000 residents. Her two Democrat opponents are state Board of Equalization (tax board) member Betty Lee and former state assembly speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles). Between those two it is a classic Nor Cal vs. So Cal race. Mrs. Yee is more liberal than Mr. Perez. But that is really in a matter of degree. As far as the race goes, Mrs. Swearingen is leading the race with 28% of the votes. Mrs. Yee is coming in second with 19% of the vote and Mr. Perez with 14% of the votes. The bad news for all candidates is that 38% of voters are undecided. The good news for Mrs. Swearingen is that more than likely she has the Republican vote. Now in this early stage she can try to sway some independent voters and maybe even some Democrats.
In other words, the California GOP may not win the governor's race or the Lt. governor's race, but there are races like state controller that the party needs to consider spending money to win on.
And I think that the Republicans are going to get enough seats in the state senate and assembly to stop the Democrat super-majority. And also will gain congressional seats as well.
So it looks like the California Republican party still has a lot of work to do but there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
A Reminder I Live In Earthquake Country And A Reminder To Be Prepared
Last night a little after 9:00 pm, there was a rolling reminder that living in California means I live in Earthquake Country.
It was one of those kind of quakes that was long and rolling. Not a jolt at all. It was enough to wake up the doggies (no, they did not warn us in advance!) and make Mrs. RVFTLC say a nice "Oh oh!"
I just sat in my recliner realizing it was not going to be much larger.
As it turned out, it was originally graded a 5.4 quake. About a half-hour later it was downgraded to a 5.1. And it did cause some damage and there were a lot of aftershocks. Most importantly, no one was killed.
But it is a stark reminder that pretty much the whole West coast of the United States, Canada and especially Alaska is part of the Pacific Ring Of Fire in which earthquakes and volcanoes are a regular part of life.
The fact is that at some point, possibly in my life time, there will be a severe and major earthquake that will hit in the Los Angeles area. It will be more than likely catastrophic. It will be the worst natural disaster to hit the United States. It could happen in San Diego. Or San Francisco. Possibly Portland, Oregon. A real doozy would be if it happened in or near Seattle.
But while there will be widespread carnage, mayhem, buildings collapsed, fires beyond control, water main breaks, gas lines exploded, and many dead and injured, many more will survive.
It is how we survive and what we can and should do to be prepared that I want to write about here.
While I will be emphasising earthquakes, much of this can be for any event such as a hurricane, tornado or any other natural and even non-natural calamity.
The most important thing to do is to always be familiar with your surroundings. A big quake could happen while you are at work or possibly at a sporting event whether at an indoor arena or outdoor stadium. But the overwhelming chances are that it will happen while you are at home.
So let's start with what to do for home preparedness.
This is very important but make sure that you know where your gas line is and turn it off immediately. Do the same for your water. If you are an apartment dweller, make sure that everyone knows where all of that important stuff is.
Since this is based on you and loved ones being at your abode, make sure all are accounted for and all right. Same thing for your pets. That is why it is preferable to keep your pets indoors.
Once you have done that, more than likely your power will be out. Again, we are talking WCS-worst case scenario. If it is at night, it is imperative to make sure to have both a big supply of candles and working flashlights. While you will have done steps one and two, now you must check to see if there is any structural damage. More than likely, you will have cracks in the walls at the very least. But your home could be off the foundation and that means get the hell out of Dodge. It is very much unsafe at that point. If you do an quick but thorough assessment and all is relatively OK, here is step four.
Find your Earthquake (or other disaster) Survival Kit.
It is very important to have your kit, or kits and I will explain kits in a bit, in an easily accessible place. You will need it or them quickly after disaster strikes.
So you ask, what do I need in my kit(s)? How long should I prepare for having no power, phone or gas services?
Here is what I recommend.
While this website does recommend to have food, supplies and water for at least 72 hours, I recommend at least one week. If you think that is too long, may I point out the disaster that was Hurricane Katrina? You are dealing with a WCS. All the government services will be stretched as soon as disaster strikes.
And I think that while there are excellent kits available at retailers and online, it is better to build your own kit.
So the Federal Emergency and Management Agency recommends to have at least these in your kit. I think that most of what is listed is all good to have. But some of it should be separated out.
I really recommend that you should have a separate pet kit. We have two dogs and both are healthy. But I think that if you have both people and dog emergency stuff in one bag, it creates more work than necessary. This is very helpful information provided by the ASPCA. The most important thing that is not on their list but the most obvious is food and water. Try to have a week's supply of their regular dog food and water, probably err on the side of more water and even food if necessary. They will be nervous because they will not be in their usual routine and dogs especially are creatures of habit.
So, what about that people kit? What about food and water for us? And what about our medications?
Let's start with the medicine first. Try to get your doctor and insurance company to provide at least an extra week's worth. If the insurance is informed that it is for emergency preparedness, that should not be a problem. But, here is something dicey. What if you have medicine that needs to be kept cool like insulin? In reality, you can keep insulin at room temperature for at least 28 days. So more than likely once the disaster happens and the power goes out, one of the last things to do is to check the fridge and get the kind of stuff like insulin out and put with the other medicines in your kit.
So the food that one should have is probably some freeze-dried, high protein food. Again, it should be enough to last at least a week. The infamous MREs or Meals Ready to Eat are available at Amazon.com. Also there is camping/freeze dried food usually available at a sporting goods store. Sports Chalet is a good one in the So Cal area. But if you don't mind a wait there is a fully prepared option available at Cheaper Than Dirt. I like this option because it covers at least a week and beyond.
That is why I believe building your own kit is best. Because you can tailor-make it to suit your needs.
And make sure to have at least water, enough for two weeks no matter what. And the same for the medical supplies portion.
Definitely have all different sizes of Band-aids, a couple of rolls of gauze, scissors, anti-biotic cream, wet-wipes that will clean an area where you may be cut. This is a good guide to build on or if you choose to buy.
I noted that you should have at least a kit for people and a kit for pets. But you should also have at least a rudimentary emergency kit in your car. That can be the 72 hour one. You can and should also have the pet stuff in that one. If you are all out in the car when disaster strikes, it may take quite a while to get home.
All of this is not meant to panic anyone. This is the reality of living in Earthquake Country. We all must be prepared. And we have to be realistic. That means do not count on the fire department, paramedics and or police and or National Guard to get to your area. And here is something to keep in mind. If you live in a higher-income area, that will be where they go. Also to the business districts. If you live in a lower-class area or Lower Slobovia, more than likely you already have the survival instinct in you. THAT is where people will survive. But long-term survival means adding supplies to make sure you are not a total victim.
Last night was a reminder that we all need to be prepared. This is a little reminder and a hope that someone will think about it and get ready.
It was one of those kind of quakes that was long and rolling. Not a jolt at all. It was enough to wake up the doggies (no, they did not warn us in advance!) and make Mrs. RVFTLC say a nice "Oh oh!"
I just sat in my recliner realizing it was not going to be much larger.
As it turned out, it was originally graded a 5.4 quake. About a half-hour later it was downgraded to a 5.1. And it did cause some damage and there were a lot of aftershocks. Most importantly, no one was killed.
But it is a stark reminder that pretty much the whole West coast of the United States, Canada and especially Alaska is part of the Pacific Ring Of Fire in which earthquakes and volcanoes are a regular part of life.
The fact is that at some point, possibly in my life time, there will be a severe and major earthquake that will hit in the Los Angeles area. It will be more than likely catastrophic. It will be the worst natural disaster to hit the United States. It could happen in San Diego. Or San Francisco. Possibly Portland, Oregon. A real doozy would be if it happened in or near Seattle.
But while there will be widespread carnage, mayhem, buildings collapsed, fires beyond control, water main breaks, gas lines exploded, and many dead and injured, many more will survive.
It is how we survive and what we can and should do to be prepared that I want to write about here.
While I will be emphasising earthquakes, much of this can be for any event such as a hurricane, tornado or any other natural and even non-natural calamity.
The most important thing to do is to always be familiar with your surroundings. A big quake could happen while you are at work or possibly at a sporting event whether at an indoor arena or outdoor stadium. But the overwhelming chances are that it will happen while you are at home.
So let's start with what to do for home preparedness.
This is very important but make sure that you know where your gas line is and turn it off immediately. Do the same for your water. If you are an apartment dweller, make sure that everyone knows where all of that important stuff is.
Since this is based on you and loved ones being at your abode, make sure all are accounted for and all right. Same thing for your pets. That is why it is preferable to keep your pets indoors.
Once you have done that, more than likely your power will be out. Again, we are talking WCS-worst case scenario. If it is at night, it is imperative to make sure to have both a big supply of candles and working flashlights. While you will have done steps one and two, now you must check to see if there is any structural damage. More than likely, you will have cracks in the walls at the very least. But your home could be off the foundation and that means get the hell out of Dodge. It is very much unsafe at that point. If you do an quick but thorough assessment and all is relatively OK, here is step four.
Find your Earthquake (or other disaster) Survival Kit.
It is very important to have your kit, or kits and I will explain kits in a bit, in an easily accessible place. You will need it or them quickly after disaster strikes.
So you ask, what do I need in my kit(s)? How long should I prepare for having no power, phone or gas services?
Here is what I recommend.
While this website does recommend to have food, supplies and water for at least 72 hours, I recommend at least one week. If you think that is too long, may I point out the disaster that was Hurricane Katrina? You are dealing with a WCS. All the government services will be stretched as soon as disaster strikes.
And I think that while there are excellent kits available at retailers and online, it is better to build your own kit.
So the Federal Emergency and Management Agency recommends to have at least these in your kit. I think that most of what is listed is all good to have. But some of it should be separated out.
I really recommend that you should have a separate pet kit. We have two dogs and both are healthy. But I think that if you have both people and dog emergency stuff in one bag, it creates more work than necessary. This is very helpful information provided by the ASPCA. The most important thing that is not on their list but the most obvious is food and water. Try to have a week's supply of their regular dog food and water, probably err on the side of more water and even food if necessary. They will be nervous because they will not be in their usual routine and dogs especially are creatures of habit.
So, what about that people kit? What about food and water for us? And what about our medications?
Let's start with the medicine first. Try to get your doctor and insurance company to provide at least an extra week's worth. If the insurance is informed that it is for emergency preparedness, that should not be a problem. But, here is something dicey. What if you have medicine that needs to be kept cool like insulin? In reality, you can keep insulin at room temperature for at least 28 days. So more than likely once the disaster happens and the power goes out, one of the last things to do is to check the fridge and get the kind of stuff like insulin out and put with the other medicines in your kit.
So the food that one should have is probably some freeze-dried, high protein food. Again, it should be enough to last at least a week. The infamous MREs or Meals Ready to Eat are available at Amazon.com. Also there is camping/freeze dried food usually available at a sporting goods store. Sports Chalet is a good one in the So Cal area. But if you don't mind a wait there is a fully prepared option available at Cheaper Than Dirt. I like this option because it covers at least a week and beyond.
That is why I believe building your own kit is best. Because you can tailor-make it to suit your needs.
And make sure to have at least water, enough for two weeks no matter what. And the same for the medical supplies portion.
Definitely have all different sizes of Band-aids, a couple of rolls of gauze, scissors, anti-biotic cream, wet-wipes that will clean an area where you may be cut. This is a good guide to build on or if you choose to buy.
I noted that you should have at least a kit for people and a kit for pets. But you should also have at least a rudimentary emergency kit in your car. That can be the 72 hour one. You can and should also have the pet stuff in that one. If you are all out in the car when disaster strikes, it may take quite a while to get home.
All of this is not meant to panic anyone. This is the reality of living in Earthquake Country. We all must be prepared. And we have to be realistic. That means do not count on the fire department, paramedics and or police and or National Guard to get to your area. And here is something to keep in mind. If you live in a higher-income area, that will be where they go. Also to the business districts. If you live in a lower-class area or Lower Slobovia, more than likely you already have the survival instinct in you. THAT is where people will survive. But long-term survival means adding supplies to make sure you are not a total victim.
Last night was a reminder that we all need to be prepared. This is a little reminder and a hope that someone will think about it and get ready.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Are My Fellow Californians Really This Stupid?
Really, are you, my fellow California citizens, whatever that means nowadays, this stupid to back warning labels and higher taxes on sodas?
It appears according to this Field Poll, you really are this moronic.
I can tell you something without the benefit of a warning label and or higher taxes.
Soda is bad for you. No really, any kind of soda is bad for you. It has a lot of sugar and or sugar substitutes and can make you fat and have teeth problems up to and as bad as losing said teeth.
Why I gave that advice to you for free.
But I guess my fellow Californians will believe anything. Anything as long as it's for the kiddies.
I never thought that I would write such a thing but screw the kiddies.
I mean it. If you are a parent and can not show simple restraint in what your children put into their bodies, your parenting can come into questioning. If you are an adult as most of those reading this are, and you don't know this, then you are stupid.
The most appalling aspect of this poll is the breakdown as far as support.
Overall, 74% of registered voters polled support warning labels on soda products. Not surprisingly, 80% of Democrats support it. And 75% of independents also show support of the warning labels. But 64% of Republicans support warning labels on soda products.
Sixty-four percent of Republicans?!
What happened to adults making their own decisions based on the facts presented to them? I guess There is a bunch of Republicans that don't care anymore.
The group known as the California Endowment, which supports pretty much any left-wing cause including the warning labels, paid for this poll and hired the Field Poll because it has a reputation of being tacitly non-partisan.
Here is what a proposed warning label would say:
Studies show that daily consumption of sodas and other sugary drinks contribute to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay.
No, really?! I am so shocked that I need the government to tell the soda makers that they have to inform the so sheltered public that there are potential risks of consuming their products.
Of course I am not shocked! I have heard much of this since I was a wee tyke back in the late 1960s and 70s when I was growing up. And it is pretty much a known fact that these are the potential side effects of excessive, and that is the key, excessive soda consumption.
Have we fallen so bad on using our common sense that we need government interference? Are we that gullible to think that an essential 24c tax on 12 ounces of soda will really go to the kiddies? Well, that is what we were sold on the state lottery. If that was the case, every school in the state would be fully funded, teachers would be paid more awesome salaries than they already are and we would be producing the best educated kids in the United States.
Now when questioned about the actual soda tax, the number actually goes down to 67% in the poll. And it is noted that similar legislation failed in the city of Richmond, California and in polling in San Francisco, it is short of the 67% that it would need to pass the voters if put on the local ballot later this year.
Clearly, while a majority seem to support the tax idea in theory, when it comes down to voting on it, there is a failure to get two-thirds a vote that is needed to raise such taxes.
But understand why it has such a high number is that thescam idea is that as long as the money is spent on supposed programs to to help childhood programs regarding this issue.
I have a novel idea.
Why is this not part of the school curriculum? Right from first grade children should be taught about such dangers as excessive soda consumption and general hygiene such as dental care and the importance of brushing and flossing their teeth. If that is done, we don't need such silliness as another tax that will, more than likely, be squandered and not do what it is supposed to.
This is for my fellow Californians from a place of seriousness.
Parents, it is up to you to teach your children about what is good and not good for them to drink and eat. You already know that soda is probably not good for them to consume. You need to exert control. You do not need the government to do it for you.
Adults, I repeat, soda is not good for you. you do no need the government to force soda makers to make you aware of that fact. Also, do not think that a separate program that is suppose to help "educate" the kiddies will do what it claims will work. Do not be fooled into supporting higher taxes because, well its for the kiddies.
In other words my fellow Californians, don't be stupid and fall for this new act of government intrusion into our private lives and decisions. Say no to warning labels and taxes against sodas!
It appears according to this Field Poll, you really are this moronic.
I can tell you something without the benefit of a warning label and or higher taxes.
Soda is bad for you. No really, any kind of soda is bad for you. It has a lot of sugar and or sugar substitutes and can make you fat and have teeth problems up to and as bad as losing said teeth.
Why I gave that advice to you for free.
But I guess my fellow Californians will believe anything. Anything as long as it's for the kiddies.
I never thought that I would write such a thing but screw the kiddies.
I mean it. If you are a parent and can not show simple restraint in what your children put into their bodies, your parenting can come into questioning. If you are an adult as most of those reading this are, and you don't know this, then you are stupid.
The most appalling aspect of this poll is the breakdown as far as support.
Overall, 74% of registered voters polled support warning labels on soda products. Not surprisingly, 80% of Democrats support it. And 75% of independents also show support of the warning labels. But 64% of Republicans support warning labels on soda products.
Sixty-four percent of Republicans?!
What happened to adults making their own decisions based on the facts presented to them? I guess There is a bunch of Republicans that don't care anymore.
The group known as the California Endowment, which supports pretty much any left-wing cause including the warning labels, paid for this poll and hired the Field Poll because it has a reputation of being tacitly non-partisan.
Here is what a proposed warning label would say:
Studies show that daily consumption of sodas and other sugary drinks contribute to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay.
No, really?! I am so shocked that I need the government to tell the soda makers that they have to inform the so sheltered public that there are potential risks of consuming their products.
Of course I am not shocked! I have heard much of this since I was a wee tyke back in the late 1960s and 70s when I was growing up. And it is pretty much a known fact that these are the potential side effects of excessive, and that is the key, excessive soda consumption.
Have we fallen so bad on using our common sense that we need government interference? Are we that gullible to think that an essential 24c tax on 12 ounces of soda will really go to the kiddies? Well, that is what we were sold on the state lottery. If that was the case, every school in the state would be fully funded, teachers would be paid more awesome salaries than they already are and we would be producing the best educated kids in the United States.
Now when questioned about the actual soda tax, the number actually goes down to 67% in the poll. And it is noted that similar legislation failed in the city of Richmond, California and in polling in San Francisco, it is short of the 67% that it would need to pass the voters if put on the local ballot later this year.
Clearly, while a majority seem to support the tax idea in theory, when it comes down to voting on it, there is a failure to get two-thirds a vote that is needed to raise such taxes.
But understand why it has such a high number is that the
I have a novel idea.
Why is this not part of the school curriculum? Right from first grade children should be taught about such dangers as excessive soda consumption and general hygiene such as dental care and the importance of brushing and flossing their teeth. If that is done, we don't need such silliness as another tax that will, more than likely, be squandered and not do what it is supposed to.
This is for my fellow Californians from a place of seriousness.
Parents, it is up to you to teach your children about what is good and not good for them to drink and eat. You already know that soda is probably not good for them to consume. You need to exert control. You do not need the government to do it for you.
Adults, I repeat, soda is not good for you. you do no need the government to force soda makers to make you aware of that fact. Also, do not think that a separate program that is suppose to help "educate" the kiddies will do what it claims will work. Do not be fooled into supporting higher taxes because, well its for the kiddies.
In other words my fellow Californians, don't be stupid and fall for this new act of government intrusion into our private lives and decisions. Say no to warning labels and taxes against sodas!
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Republicans Win Big In San Diego Mayor Race
Sure, California elections for local offices are officially non-partisan, but the dirty little secret is that everyone knows who is with what party and they do funnel money to these races.
San Diego had to have a special election for mayor yesterday as a direct result of former Democrat mayor Filthy Bob Filner and his gross sexual harassment charges. And it had to go two rounds because in last years election, no one got 50% + one to avoid the runoff that was yesterday.
The Democrat-backed candidate was a city councilman, David Alvarez. Mr. Alvarez was heavily backed by the usual "progressive" suspects. That would be labor unions, race-huckster groups, community organizers, and the like.
The Republican-backed candidate was also a city councilman, Kevin Faulconer. Mr. Faulconer was backed by business interests, former mayor Jerry Saunders (a Republican and very popular still), the local newspaper, U-T San Diego (U-T is for the longhand name, Union-Tribune), and even a former Democrat city attorney, Mike Aguirre.
Mr. Alvarez ran the Team Obama type of campaign. With a boatload of union money, targeting specific pro-Democrat group voters and starting early to try to define Mr. Faulconer.
But Mr. Faulconer ran a campaign kinda sorta Warren G. Harding style and an underlying theme of a return to normalcy in city politics. Now I don't mean the corruption that San Diego politics can be known for. I mean that the mayor is going to do his best to run things efficiently and put some conservative ideas in place.
And while many figured that based on voter registration, which heavily favors Democrats, and an urge of some voters to elect the first Hispanic mayor in San Diego history, Kevin Faulconer, Republican, prevailed and in a pretty substantial manner winning the mayor's office by a 55% to 45% over Democrat David Alvarez.
So, a moderate Republican, Mr. Faulconer, pulled off a big win and a shot in the arm for the moribund California Republican party and how did he do it?
First, his strategy was to go to places Republicans normally avoid like the plague. His strategy was to expand the Republican base, which is about a voter registration of 27%. It means that he has to reach out to independent and yes, Democrat voters. And no doubt some Democrats were not thrilled about Filthy Filner and is dalliances. He needed to get at least another 25% of potential voters.
Mr. Faulconer did not, as some will report, downplay being a Republican as much as talking about issues that the voters cared about.
On the other hand, Mr. Alvarez tried to make it a base election, thus again based on voter registration should have given him a win. The Democrat voter registration in the city of San Diego is about 40% and independents are actually ahead of Republicans. So, Mr. Alvarez has his base and figures he could get enough independents and win pretty easily. Again, it was exactly from the Team Obama play book in 2012.
But given the climate as why there was an election in the first place and the general drift of San Diego government, the voters decided to get things back on track and went with Faulconer.
Is this a turning of fortune for Republicans in California?
Possibly.
The reality is that there is no major, serious candidate for governor of California on the GOP side. The two announced candidates are state assemblyman and Tea Party favorite Tim Donnelly and Neel Kashkari who's claim to fame is that he implemented and oversaw the infamous TARP program.
Mr. Donnelly can be characterized as a loose cannon while Mr. Kashkari will have a lot of baggage in dealing with the whole TARP program. No doubt in my mind that Mr. Kashkari will get the official state GOP backing in the non-partisan open primary this coming June. And current Gov. Jerry Brown, with about $15,000,000 in the bank has still not announced his plans regarding running for reelection or not. It is very possible that Gov. Brown will not run which would throw the race all around in turmoil. \
But I look at either candidate as probably losers in November due to lack of name recognition in the case of Mr. Kashkari and controversy surrounding Mr. Donnelly and his connection to the border-security Minutemen group.
That will hurt many down-ticket races for the seven other constitutional offices and possibly other races that could get enough Republicans elected in the state assembly and senate to end the Democrat super-majority. It can also affect congressional races.
That is the down side.
The upside is that a Republican can win when focusing on issues that matter. It is very important in California not to let the very leftywhore-dominated media define the Republicans, especially on social issues. I'm not saying Republicans should not speak on them, but do so intelligently.
Most important is that Republicans must be on offense to win any election. Each Republican candidate must define the Democrat opponent before it is done to them. Don't count on much of the leftywhore state media. But hammer enough to make them take notice.
And this is also important. Do not leave any area to the Dems. Seriously. There is no Karl Rove model in California. Yes, I would stay away from San Francisco and Oakland and the coastal Bay Area. But look to the suburbs for potential growth. Places like Contra Costa county. And while we can't currently win Los Angeles county, there are a lot of Republican strongholds. Take advantage of those areas and seek to expand to more areas. It is what the Democrats do.
Kevin Faulconer had a big win for Republicans in the San Diego mayor's race. Can that be translated to the state level?
San Diego had to have a special election for mayor yesterday as a direct result of former Democrat mayor Filthy Bob Filner and his gross sexual harassment charges. And it had to go two rounds because in last years election, no one got 50% + one to avoid the runoff that was yesterday.
The Democrat-backed candidate was a city councilman, David Alvarez. Mr. Alvarez was heavily backed by the usual "progressive" suspects. That would be labor unions, race-huckster groups, community organizers, and the like.
The Republican-backed candidate was also a city councilman, Kevin Faulconer. Mr. Faulconer was backed by business interests, former mayor Jerry Saunders (a Republican and very popular still), the local newspaper, U-T San Diego (U-T is for the longhand name, Union-Tribune), and even a former Democrat city attorney, Mike Aguirre.
Mr. Alvarez ran the Team Obama type of campaign. With a boatload of union money, targeting specific pro-Democrat group voters and starting early to try to define Mr. Faulconer.
But Mr. Faulconer ran a campaign kinda sorta Warren G. Harding style and an underlying theme of a return to normalcy in city politics. Now I don't mean the corruption that San Diego politics can be known for. I mean that the mayor is going to do his best to run things efficiently and put some conservative ideas in place.
And while many figured that based on voter registration, which heavily favors Democrats, and an urge of some voters to elect the first Hispanic mayor in San Diego history, Kevin Faulconer, Republican, prevailed and in a pretty substantial manner winning the mayor's office by a 55% to 45% over Democrat David Alvarez.
So, a moderate Republican, Mr. Faulconer, pulled off a big win and a shot in the arm for the moribund California Republican party and how did he do it?
First, his strategy was to go to places Republicans normally avoid like the plague. His strategy was to expand the Republican base, which is about a voter registration of 27%. It means that he has to reach out to independent and yes, Democrat voters. And no doubt some Democrats were not thrilled about Filthy Filner and is dalliances. He needed to get at least another 25% of potential voters.
Mr. Faulconer did not, as some will report, downplay being a Republican as much as talking about issues that the voters cared about.
On the other hand, Mr. Alvarez tried to make it a base election, thus again based on voter registration should have given him a win. The Democrat voter registration in the city of San Diego is about 40% and independents are actually ahead of Republicans. So, Mr. Alvarez has his base and figures he could get enough independents and win pretty easily. Again, it was exactly from the Team Obama play book in 2012.
But given the climate as why there was an election in the first place and the general drift of San Diego government, the voters decided to get things back on track and went with Faulconer.
Is this a turning of fortune for Republicans in California?
Possibly.
The reality is that there is no major, serious candidate for governor of California on the GOP side. The two announced candidates are state assemblyman and Tea Party favorite Tim Donnelly and Neel Kashkari who's claim to fame is that he implemented and oversaw the infamous TARP program.
Mr. Donnelly can be characterized as a loose cannon while Mr. Kashkari will have a lot of baggage in dealing with the whole TARP program. No doubt in my mind that Mr. Kashkari will get the official state GOP backing in the non-partisan open primary this coming June. And current Gov. Jerry Brown, with about $15,000,000 in the bank has still not announced his plans regarding running for reelection or not. It is very possible that Gov. Brown will not run which would throw the race all around in turmoil. \
But I look at either candidate as probably losers in November due to lack of name recognition in the case of Mr. Kashkari and controversy surrounding Mr. Donnelly and his connection to the border-security Minutemen group.
That will hurt many down-ticket races for the seven other constitutional offices and possibly other races that could get enough Republicans elected in the state assembly and senate to end the Democrat super-majority. It can also affect congressional races.
That is the down side.
The upside is that a Republican can win when focusing on issues that matter. It is very important in California not to let the very leftywhore-dominated media define the Republicans, especially on social issues. I'm not saying Republicans should not speak on them, but do so intelligently.
Most important is that Republicans must be on offense to win any election. Each Republican candidate must define the Democrat opponent before it is done to them. Don't count on much of the leftywhore state media. But hammer enough to make them take notice.
And this is also important. Do not leave any area to the Dems. Seriously. There is no Karl Rove model in California. Yes, I would stay away from San Francisco and Oakland and the coastal Bay Area. But look to the suburbs for potential growth. Places like Contra Costa county. And while we can't currently win Los Angeles county, there are a lot of Republican strongholds. Take advantage of those areas and seek to expand to more areas. It is what the Democrats do.
Kevin Faulconer had a big win for Republicans in the San Diego mayor's race. Can that be translated to the state level?
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
California Trying To Affect Social Change Through Tax Code
It stuns me that I have to find this story about legislation winding through the California state legislature that would take away state tax-exempt status from various groups for supposedly perpetuating some form of discrimination in . . . The Washington Times.
And this should be getting much more publicity than it is.
But this is California and the "media" is all but controlled by the Democrat party. No seriously. Outside of maybe talk radio and a couple of newspapers, The Orange County Register and the U-T San Diego, the "media" in this state is driven by the left and their agenda.
Understand that if this legislation passes and Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown signs it, this is how the Democrat party will try to force private organizations to change their ways to please their fringe base. A fringe base they need to obtain, gain and keep power.
The legislation is known as SB 323 and spearheaded by state senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and it will take away the state tax-exemption from what is referred to as a public charity youth organization. And in the text of the legislation it has these definitions:
"That an organization that is a public charity youth organization that discriminates on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation is not exempt from the taxes imposed by that law."
And what is it that qualifies as a public youth charity organization?
Well here is what Sen. Lara thinks are public youth charity organizations:
Little League, Bobby Sox, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire, Inc., Young Men’s Christian Association, Young Women’s Christian Association, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, 4-H Clubs, Distributive Education Clubs of America, Future Business Leaders of America, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, Collegiate Young Farmers, Boys’ Clubs, Girls’ Clubs, Special Olympics, Inc., American Youth Soccer Organization, California Youth Soccer Association, North, California Youth Soccer Association, South, and Pop Warner football.
Inserting the triple facepalm here, although it is not enough:
Where, where to begin?
Well, the obvious is what is Sen. Lara's skin in the game?
Of course Sen. Lara is openly gay. And in Sen. Lara's "mind", these groups are real or imagined anti-homosexual. Oh yes, he does throw in sop language like race, creed or religion to make it a bit more palatable. But really, this is to make organizations drop what they believe or are perceived to believe.
Let's look at the list and show some examples of organizations that clearly have a religious angle.
That would be the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association. Both are more familiar as the YMCA or the WYCA. I highlight Christian for the obvious reasons. Both groups are, let me spell for those like Sen. Lara, C H R I S T I A N organizations. Both were founded specifically to promote Christianity. In fact, here is the mission statement for the YMCA at the link. Ahh, I think that the statement has nothing to say one way or the other about homosexuals. And I know that when one uses YMCA or YWCA facilities, no one is asked if they are Christians and or homosexuals. And the WYCA sounds like the perfect group for people like Sen. Lara as it advocates the left-wing agenda. Read this link if you think that I am being over reactive. In fact, the statement does note that many are NOT Christian that work in and for the WYCA. But once again, there is nothing about homosexuals one way or the other. And I'll bet that there is really no discrimination at all at WYCA facilities.
But no matter to people like Sen. Lara. They are clearly sexist organizations and they advocate that yucky Christian religion. So yeah, lets tax 'em into submission.
OK Sen. Lara, why are you going after the Future Farmers of America?
There is nothing, not one thing anywhere that explicitly or on the down-low that discriminates against anyone, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, race, religion, not one thing. If you do not believe me, here is mission statement page, the bylaws and the organization constitution.
I suppose the pesky standard that one should be enrolled in agriculture related classes and actually work and spend their own money is pretty discriminatory according to Sen. Lara and his clique.
One of my favs of this is going after the Special Olympics. Yes, I know that a group that exists because of recognizing the value of those with special needs, and that is an umbrella term primarily for mental disorders, is just eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll! I guess that there is some people that feel the Special Olympics is a discriminating organization as evidenced here. But I support this worthy goal because it does provide an outlet for those with mental disabilities to participate in sports. What bothers Sen. Lara and his clique about this? That there are no homosexual special needs participants?!
And damn me that this legislation goes right after youth sports! Here is the list:
Little league baseball
Bobby Sox softball
American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO)
California Youth Soccer Organization (CYSO)
California Youth Soccer Organization North and South
Pop Warner football
I refer to the triple facepalm photo above once again.
When I suggested here that the left hates competitive sports here, I know what I am speaking of. Even though most if not all do not have score and statistics until children are older, they are competitive. And yes, they do play by gender. Again, there is nothing to stop a group from forming co-ed, no stats leagues. Also note that the legislation goes after baseball, a tradition-laden sport, football, a very competitive and yes aggressive sport and soccer, a very popular sport especially among immigrant communities but has a fan base that again, can kind of be yucky to people like Sen. Lara and his clique.
And of course the legislation goes after the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Boy Scouts. And even the Girl Scouts are not safe. Neither are gender-specific Boy's Clubs or Girl's Clubs. The Boy's and Girl's Clubs seem to be safe.
If you really look at the list all the groups listed are pretty traditional laden. The natural appeal is to people who value a certain tradition. And it is not limited to conservative people. Many people that are liberal are part of all of these groups. Most promote great ideas and values and have adapted to changing times without going against their values.
But here is what people like Sen. Lara and his clique don't get.
If this abominable legislation should be passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Moonbeam Brown, what is to say a conservative part of the United States will not try this to assault decidedly liberal or left leaning groups? Who is to say that Texas legislators may not move to take away the state tax-exempt status of Planned Parenthood? The National Organization of Women? The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? May I go on with liberal-left groups that the conservatives do not like?
The real problem is how the tax-code grants special status in the first place to many groups and or organizations.
The point of taxation is to have the largest possible base and to fund the government to provide basic services. Which of course means that takes out any social engineering. And that is what Sen. Lara and his clique are trying to do.
But my real question is this.
What the eff is wrong with you Ricardo Lara? What, do you hate these particular groups? Could not hang in sports? Didn't get into the FFA? Couldn't get in the Boy Scouts? What, all because you are gay? Did they all tell you so? Really, do you realize that you will tax these worthwhile groups out of existance unless they conform to your personal specifications? Do you really want to take away social opportunities for children especially? Educational opportunities?
Once again, people like Sen. Lara and the whole idea of a full-time, top paid legislature is what is making California an unlivable place. Seriously. This state that I love and call home is becomingly utterly unlivable.
Social change is not always a bad thing. What is bad is using the taxing power of the state to affect social change among organizations that choose what kind of people they want in them. It is a form of the jack-boot of big government that is going to force a showdown that is totally unnecessary.
And this should be getting much more publicity than it is.
But this is California and the "media" is all but controlled by the Democrat party. No seriously. Outside of maybe talk radio and a couple of newspapers, The Orange County Register and the U-T San Diego, the "media" in this state is driven by the left and their agenda.
Understand that if this legislation passes and Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown signs it, this is how the Democrat party will try to force private organizations to change their ways to please their fringe base. A fringe base they need to obtain, gain and keep power.
The legislation is known as SB 323 and spearheaded by state senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and it will take away the state tax-exemption from what is referred to as a public charity youth organization. And in the text of the legislation it has these definitions:
"That an organization that is a public charity youth organization that discriminates on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation is not exempt from the taxes imposed by that law."
And what is it that qualifies as a public youth charity organization?
Well here is what Sen. Lara thinks are public youth charity organizations:
Little League, Bobby Sox, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire, Inc., Young Men’s Christian Association, Young Women’s Christian Association, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, 4-H Clubs, Distributive Education Clubs of America, Future Business Leaders of America, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, Collegiate Young Farmers, Boys’ Clubs, Girls’ Clubs, Special Olympics, Inc., American Youth Soccer Organization, California Youth Soccer Association, North, California Youth Soccer Association, South, and Pop Warner football.
Inserting the triple facepalm here, although it is not enough:
Where, where to begin?
Well, the obvious is what is Sen. Lara's skin in the game?
Of course Sen. Lara is openly gay. And in Sen. Lara's "mind", these groups are real or imagined anti-homosexual. Oh yes, he does throw in sop language like race, creed or religion to make it a bit more palatable. But really, this is to make organizations drop what they believe or are perceived to believe.
Let's look at the list and show some examples of organizations that clearly have a religious angle.
That would be the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association. Both are more familiar as the YMCA or the WYCA. I highlight Christian for the obvious reasons. Both groups are, let me spell for those like Sen. Lara, C H R I S T I A N organizations. Both were founded specifically to promote Christianity. In fact, here is the mission statement for the YMCA at the link. Ahh, I think that the statement has nothing to say one way or the other about homosexuals. And I know that when one uses YMCA or YWCA facilities, no one is asked if they are Christians and or homosexuals. And the WYCA sounds like the perfect group for people like Sen. Lara as it advocates the left-wing agenda. Read this link if you think that I am being over reactive. In fact, the statement does note that many are NOT Christian that work in and for the WYCA. But once again, there is nothing about homosexuals one way or the other. And I'll bet that there is really no discrimination at all at WYCA facilities.
But no matter to people like Sen. Lara. They are clearly sexist organizations and they advocate that yucky Christian religion. So yeah, lets tax 'em into submission.
OK Sen. Lara, why are you going after the Future Farmers of America?
There is nothing, not one thing anywhere that explicitly or on the down-low that discriminates against anyone, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, race, religion, not one thing. If you do not believe me, here is mission statement page, the bylaws and the organization constitution.
I suppose the pesky standard that one should be enrolled in agriculture related classes and actually work and spend their own money is pretty discriminatory according to Sen. Lara and his clique.
One of my favs of this is going after the Special Olympics. Yes, I know that a group that exists because of recognizing the value of those with special needs, and that is an umbrella term primarily for mental disorders, is just eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll! I guess that there is some people that feel the Special Olympics is a discriminating organization as evidenced here. But I support this worthy goal because it does provide an outlet for those with mental disabilities to participate in sports. What bothers Sen. Lara and his clique about this? That there are no homosexual special needs participants?!
And damn me that this legislation goes right after youth sports! Here is the list:
Little league baseball
Bobby Sox softball
American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO)
California Youth Soccer Organization (CYSO)
California Youth Soccer Organization North and South
Pop Warner football
I refer to the triple facepalm photo above once again.
When I suggested here that the left hates competitive sports here, I know what I am speaking of. Even though most if not all do not have score and statistics until children are older, they are competitive. And yes, they do play by gender. Again, there is nothing to stop a group from forming co-ed, no stats leagues. Also note that the legislation goes after baseball, a tradition-laden sport, football, a very competitive and yes aggressive sport and soccer, a very popular sport especially among immigrant communities but has a fan base that again, can kind of be yucky to people like Sen. Lara and his clique.
And of course the legislation goes after the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Boy Scouts. And even the Girl Scouts are not safe. Neither are gender-specific Boy's Clubs or Girl's Clubs. The Boy's and Girl's Clubs seem to be safe.
If you really look at the list all the groups listed are pretty traditional laden. The natural appeal is to people who value a certain tradition. And it is not limited to conservative people. Many people that are liberal are part of all of these groups. Most promote great ideas and values and have adapted to changing times without going against their values.
But here is what people like Sen. Lara and his clique don't get.
If this abominable legislation should be passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Moonbeam Brown, what is to say a conservative part of the United States will not try this to assault decidedly liberal or left leaning groups? Who is to say that Texas legislators may not move to take away the state tax-exempt status of Planned Parenthood? The National Organization of Women? The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? May I go on with liberal-left groups that the conservatives do not like?
The real problem is how the tax-code grants special status in the first place to many groups and or organizations.
The point of taxation is to have the largest possible base and to fund the government to provide basic services. Which of course means that takes out any social engineering. And that is what Sen. Lara and his clique are trying to do.
But my real question is this.
What the eff is wrong with you Ricardo Lara? What, do you hate these particular groups? Could not hang in sports? Didn't get into the FFA? Couldn't get in the Boy Scouts? What, all because you are gay? Did they all tell you so? Really, do you realize that you will tax these worthwhile groups out of existance unless they conform to your personal specifications? Do you really want to take away social opportunities for children especially? Educational opportunities?
Once again, people like Sen. Lara and the whole idea of a full-time, top paid legislature is what is making California an unlivable place. Seriously. This state that I love and call home is becomingly utterly unlivable.
Social change is not always a bad thing. What is bad is using the taxing power of the state to affect social change among organizations that choose what kind of people they want in them. It is a form of the jack-boot of big government that is going to force a showdown that is totally unnecessary.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Confused About What Bathroom To Use? Not To Worry If You Are A California School Student
I tell you loyal readers, I have never been more embarrassed to be a Californian as I am today as my state will, as of next year, allow "transgendered" K-12 students to use whatever restroom they so choose and whether or not the want to go out for the boys or girls sports team.
Of course, it all depends on how they feel any given day, right?
Here is the funny thing.
There really is nothing that I read about the legislation, signed by Gov. Jerry Brownout, that really defines how much one is or is not "into transition" from one sex to the other.
So, before we go on, it is very important to define terms. Because being transgendered is different from being a transsexual.
Let's go to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
Transgender (adjective) : of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth.
Transsexual (noun) : a person who strongly identifies with the opposite sex and may seek to live as a member of this sex especially by undergoing surgery and hormone therapy to obtain the necessary physical appearance (as by changing the external sex organs)
It is very, very important to get the terms straight, so to speak.
Being a transgendered person does not mean that person will go all the way and become a person of the opposite sex that they were born as. The so-called transition can be quick or a very long time depending on the person. And the reality is that it may very well be a feeling of the moment and not the life-changing experience that becoming transsexual is.
OK, now that is out of the way. Again, it is important to understand why this is insanity.
First, what are the actual statistics as to how many California K-12 students are transgendered? Well, the article does not say and it is rather impossible to find out online as there are over 13,000,000 possible matches. After 10 pages of searching, I gave up. Maybe the reason that we are not told is because the number is beyond infetesibly small and probably the overwhelming number of that are high schoolers and not kindergartners.
So, with no stats easily at one's disposal as to how many transgenders this effects, what is the rationale for this legislation?
Here is Evan Westrup, a spokesman for Gov. Brownout:
"All students should have the opportunity to fully participate and succeed in school."
I agree with that. Yes, all students should have the opportunity to participate and succeed in school.
But where one goes to the bathroom or decides upon their frame of mind any given day what sports team that they may want to try out for really affect full participation?
Not at all.
After all, in regards to the sports teams, coaches will supposedly still get to determine who makes the cut to be on any team.
And there are such things as unisex bathrooms. In fact they are given such names as family restrooms. That is so a dude can take a baby in a restroom to change a baby's diaper and vice-versa. Then said parent does not have to be worried about going into their gender-specific restroom and deal with junior or juniorette.
So, I don't buy that reason at all.
But leave it to the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco-of course!) to explain yet another rationale behind this legislation:
"While many California schoolchildren are already protected by policies in some of our biggest school districts, other districts don't seem to understand that transgender students should have equal access to all programs and facilities."
Ahh, Assemblyman Ammiano hits on something that statists do not like.
Letting local school districts determine such policies.
I know for many outside of Cali, it is hard to believe but there are conservative parts of the state. The Central Valley is one. Much of inland No Cal. And yes, always Orange County in So Cal.
The statists who in this case are pushing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered/sexual polices, better known as LGBT want the power of the state, in this case, California, to supplant that of local school boards because without that, they will not force the conservative or traditional parts of California to "come along" with this particular agenda.
And they are right.
No one in the conservative or traditional parts of California want to shove their agenda on this issue down the throats of the people in places like Los Angeles or San Francisco as they are to them.
But that is of no concern to those pushing this agenda faster than a runaway freight train.
But the one thing that is totally laughable in defending this embarrassing legislation is this from the San Francisco Examiner:
Supporters said it will help reduce bullying and discrimination against transgender students.
Sorry, I have to clean the coffee stains off the computer keyboard from the laugh over that one.
Really, singling out transgender, as this legislation does, is going to reduce bullying and discrimination?!
Have any of these douchbrains been to school, ever? No really, have they?!
I mean, bullying and discrimination have gone on, well forever and will continue to do so whether they like it or not.
As far as the bullying, that is kid-oriented. There are always going to be kids that harass others. No matter all the PSA's and the "shaming", it is something that is for some a strange rite of passage. I do not get it. But as the victim of and yes, even participant in bullying, it is not just going to go away because LGBT activists want it to.
When I was bullied in school I was taught to let it go until it got physical. Then I could fight back and fight back hard. Eventually, I found someone less than me, in my school mind of mush, I could harass. Never got violent or anything like that. But I realized at a point how wrong I was for doing that. I did so on my own and stopped doing it. I am not proud to admit that here, but it is what happened with me.
The reason I even mention my own experience is that for the transgendered, they need to realize that not everyone is going to be down with them. If it was not for being transgendered, there could be a million, nonsensical reasons. But the one thing that they need to be taught is that. And also to have a beyond thick skin. For you cannot force people to like you. And if harassed to the point of violence, what I do not advocate but I do live in the real world, fight the hell back. Trust me, the bully will stop when confronted back. It is not what they really want and or expect.
As far as discrimination, sorry but again in K-12, that too is student-led.
By discrimination, I mean who can be a part of a school-sanctioned club. And who people choose to be friends with or not. Like bullying, there is a pecking order in school.
There are the jocks, the cheerleaders, the geeks/nerds, the stoners, and I can go on but you get the picture.
Like anything else, they are not going to suddenly say welcome to the transgendered in a group just because one is.
I also want to point out that this is a direct result of dealing with one's feelings over reality.
For those that are wondering if they really are a gal trapped in a dude's body or vice-versa, it is probably very traumatic. But it can also be just a stage as well. It should not be taken lightly by a child and or parent. It takes a lot of therapy, all the things to determine if it is really something a kid really understands and wants. If Johnny wants to play with Barbies and Janie wants to play baseball, it does not mean that they are trapped in a wrong body. One cannot and should not take that to mean that said kid needs to become transgendered and then transsexual.
And one more thing.
Being transgendered does not mean that person is going all the way, again so to speak, to becoming transsexual.
That kid may just want to feel everything but fully the opposite gender. Maybe the boy does not want his member removed and turned into a vagina. Or a girl wanting her vagina turned into a penis.
So sometimes it should be left to people, not government, to deal with these very personal and traumatic issues.
But when there are votes to be had and a show of emotion, one can count on the liberal Democrats and their allies to whip up the populace in a frenzy and this is why I am embarrassed to be a Californian today.
Of course, it all depends on how they feel any given day, right?
Here is the funny thing.
There really is nothing that I read about the legislation, signed by Gov. Jerry Brownout, that really defines how much one is or is not "into transition" from one sex to the other.
So, before we go on, it is very important to define terms. Because being transgendered is different from being a transsexual.
Let's go to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
Transgender (adjective) : of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth.
Transsexual (noun) : a person who strongly identifies with the opposite sex and may seek to live as a member of this sex especially by undergoing surgery and hormone therapy to obtain the necessary physical appearance (as by changing the external sex organs)
It is very, very important to get the terms straight, so to speak.
Being a transgendered person does not mean that person will go all the way and become a person of the opposite sex that they were born as. The so-called transition can be quick or a very long time depending on the person. And the reality is that it may very well be a feeling of the moment and not the life-changing experience that becoming transsexual is.
OK, now that is out of the way. Again, it is important to understand why this is insanity.
First, what are the actual statistics as to how many California K-12 students are transgendered? Well, the article does not say and it is rather impossible to find out online as there are over 13,000,000 possible matches. After 10 pages of searching, I gave up. Maybe the reason that we are not told is because the number is beyond infetesibly small and probably the overwhelming number of that are high schoolers and not kindergartners.
So, with no stats easily at one's disposal as to how many transgenders this effects, what is the rationale for this legislation?
Here is Evan Westrup, a spokesman for Gov. Brownout:
"All students should have the opportunity to fully participate and succeed in school."
I agree with that. Yes, all students should have the opportunity to participate and succeed in school.
But where one goes to the bathroom or decides upon their frame of mind any given day what sports team that they may want to try out for really affect full participation?
Not at all.
After all, in regards to the sports teams, coaches will supposedly still get to determine who makes the cut to be on any team.
And there are such things as unisex bathrooms. In fact they are given such names as family restrooms. That is so a dude can take a baby in a restroom to change a baby's diaper and vice-versa. Then said parent does not have to be worried about going into their gender-specific restroom and deal with junior or juniorette.
So, I don't buy that reason at all.
But leave it to the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco-of course!) to explain yet another rationale behind this legislation:
"While many California schoolchildren are already protected by policies in some of our biggest school districts, other districts don't seem to understand that transgender students should have equal access to all programs and facilities."
Ahh, Assemblyman Ammiano hits on something that statists do not like.
Letting local school districts determine such policies.
I know for many outside of Cali, it is hard to believe but there are conservative parts of the state. The Central Valley is one. Much of inland No Cal. And yes, always Orange County in So Cal.
The statists who in this case are pushing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered/sexual polices, better known as LGBT want the power of the state, in this case, California, to supplant that of local school boards because without that, they will not force the conservative or traditional parts of California to "come along" with this particular agenda.
And they are right.
No one in the conservative or traditional parts of California want to shove their agenda on this issue down the throats of the people in places like Los Angeles or San Francisco as they are to them.
But that is of no concern to those pushing this agenda faster than a runaway freight train.
But the one thing that is totally laughable in defending this embarrassing legislation is this from the San Francisco Examiner:
Supporters said it will help reduce bullying and discrimination against transgender students.
Sorry, I have to clean the coffee stains off the computer keyboard from the laugh over that one.
Really, singling out transgender, as this legislation does, is going to reduce bullying and discrimination?!
Have any of these douchbrains been to school, ever? No really, have they?!
I mean, bullying and discrimination have gone on, well forever and will continue to do so whether they like it or not.
As far as the bullying, that is kid-oriented. There are always going to be kids that harass others. No matter all the PSA's and the "shaming", it is something that is for some a strange rite of passage. I do not get it. But as the victim of and yes, even participant in bullying, it is not just going to go away because LGBT activists want it to.
When I was bullied in school I was taught to let it go until it got physical. Then I could fight back and fight back hard. Eventually, I found someone less than me, in my school mind of mush, I could harass. Never got violent or anything like that. But I realized at a point how wrong I was for doing that. I did so on my own and stopped doing it. I am not proud to admit that here, but it is what happened with me.
The reason I even mention my own experience is that for the transgendered, they need to realize that not everyone is going to be down with them. If it was not for being transgendered, there could be a million, nonsensical reasons. But the one thing that they need to be taught is that. And also to have a beyond thick skin. For you cannot force people to like you. And if harassed to the point of violence, what I do not advocate but I do live in the real world, fight the hell back. Trust me, the bully will stop when confronted back. It is not what they really want and or expect.
As far as discrimination, sorry but again in K-12, that too is student-led.
By discrimination, I mean who can be a part of a school-sanctioned club. And who people choose to be friends with or not. Like bullying, there is a pecking order in school.
There are the jocks, the cheerleaders, the geeks/nerds, the stoners, and I can go on but you get the picture.
Like anything else, they are not going to suddenly say welcome to the transgendered in a group just because one is.
I also want to point out that this is a direct result of dealing with one's feelings over reality.
For those that are wondering if they really are a gal trapped in a dude's body or vice-versa, it is probably very traumatic. But it can also be just a stage as well. It should not be taken lightly by a child and or parent. It takes a lot of therapy, all the things to determine if it is really something a kid really understands and wants. If Johnny wants to play with Barbies and Janie wants to play baseball, it does not mean that they are trapped in a wrong body. One cannot and should not take that to mean that said kid needs to become transgendered and then transsexual.
And one more thing.
Being transgendered does not mean that person is going all the way, again so to speak, to becoming transsexual.
That kid may just want to feel everything but fully the opposite gender. Maybe the boy does not want his member removed and turned into a vagina. Or a girl wanting her vagina turned into a penis.
So sometimes it should be left to people, not government, to deal with these very personal and traumatic issues.
But when there are votes to be had and a show of emotion, one can count on the liberal Democrats and their allies to whip up the populace in a frenzy and this is why I am embarrassed to be a Californian today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)