RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: How do Californian Dems see Arnold?, a move toward intelligence or ahcting?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,20:54   

Quote
The deal between the Democratic-controlled Legislature and the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, calls for a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, and could establish controls on the largest industrial sectors, from utilities to oil refineries to cement plants.


Quote
The governor, whose popularity plummeted after a group of polarizing ballot initiatives failed at the polls last year, has been steadily pedaling to the left for months, supporting legislation to increase the state's minimum wage and to make some prescription drugs more accessible.

one link randomly selected

My dad knew one of the state auditors or maybe the treasurer, i forget, when arnie was elected. According to da's friend, terminator actually believed ayn randian and friedmanic rhetoric. He immediately gutted an already broken system thinking that it would be eutopia.

If that take is true, might this (and I have to add his solar initiative which he should get credit for too) be a case of someone hypnotized by the flashing lights (like some folks are with extreme politics or religion) but who actually can recognize when outcomes aren't meeting expectations? ANd then modify their thinking?

Is it possible he is an honest elitist? (semi-honest, I do remember the enron rumors and he is in politics after all)

How does it look from Cali? (That would be you Ick.)

so- to summarize, 2 questions:

1) is it a case of "once was blind but now I'm starting to see"? That might provide hope in this fundy-infested swamp we call life.

2) What do you think of the guy now that he's done some stuff?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,21:39   

Here's the dealio:

Arnold was originally a centrist with a pretty well-reasoned platform; a lot of which made good sense.

Many people suggested he throw his hat in the ring for the next governor's race (which at the time wasn't scheduled for another two years).

after the Enron fiasco, there was a specific rich republican who funded a drive to recall Gray Davis, blaming him for the initial failure to recognize what Enron was doing, and what PG&E was doing with power manipulation and rate manipulation.

as a side note, there is no possible way one person could be blamed for that entire fiasco; many companies and many people were to blame, the governor reacted in the only way possible given the emergent nature of the situation, only to be criticized for paying "too much" for the emergency power reserves in a post hoc fashion.

Ok, with the stage set thusly, a massive ad campaign and signature drive managed to get enough votes to succeed in getting a recall election on the ballot in CA.

Once that happened, the Orange County Republicans ™ managed to convince Arnold to throw his hat in the ring for the recall election, with their "help".

lo and behold, all of a sudden Arnold's platform started to look more and more like a conservative right wing platform, while he still spouted that he would work "with" the democratically controlled congress to "fix" things.  It's my opinion that Arnold, faced with the fact that running for gov. in CA is a very expensive prospect (FAR more than any other state), decided that the only way he could succeed is with the support of the neocons, and so threw his hat in with them.

*sigh*  

After he won the recall election, his promise of "working with" the demos in congress became a defacto neocon referendum on the democratically controlled congress, and MUCH backbiting, threats, and ridiculousness was spouted by Arnold in the press.  

for some reason (my guess is both the persuasive nature of the neocons supporting him, along with the cash), he decided the neocons must be right about everything, and so sponsored several ballot initiatives that he was SURE would show that most of california wanted things done HIS way (read: the neocon way), and would essentially bypass the democratic legislature and let him do what he wanted.

OOOPS.

every ballot initiative, and i do mean EVERY one, went down in flames.  None of them were really even close.

after that little attempt to bypass our system of government via referendum, uh, backfired... his poll numbers were lower than GW's.

I think he finally realized that maybe, just maybe, the Orange County neocons were full of shit.

so he admitted he made a mistake, dumped some folks, and did start trying to actually work with the demos rather than trying to "muscle them under" (pardon the pun).

bottom line, he has little time left to actually accomplish much of anything, having wasted a good portion of his tenure believing what the right wing ideologues told him.

Personally, I have little faith in a man who would so completely abandon the platform that made him think to run to begin with in favor of somebody else's, who then proceeded to make him yet another actor/puppet like Reagan was.

Don't doubt the fact that if Arnold was native, the neocons would be trying to prep him for a run on the presidency.

In fact, IIRC, the same neocon that started the Davis recall initiative spearheaded an attempt to write an ammendment to make it legal for foreign born nationals to run for the presidency.

so here's the summary:

another actor-as-neocon-puppet finally gets shot down in the public eye, as the neocons overreach with an attempt to bypass the very way the state is governed.

this is not to say there aren't some real sticky issues involved with union influence on the democratic congress, but trying to solve them by bypassing the congress via ballot initiative is certainly NOT the way to go.

will arnold get re-elected?

can't say yet, but unless the dems come up with a strong candidate, this state has a phenomenally short memory, and the coup Arnold and co. tried to pull will likely be forgotten come the next vote.

I give it 50/50, even though his current poll numbers are under 30, IIRC.

go figure.

I think most people in this country decide their leaders based on who looks the best in TV campaign ads, which is really the reason Arnold won in the first place.

If your pop knows the current state treasurer, then he knows the man the dems will likely run against Arnold in the next election.

so, i guess to more succinctly answer your questions:

1) is it a case of "once was blind but now I'm starting to see"? That might provide hope in this fundy-infested swamp we call life.

Yes, and no.  It's true he seemed to learn from the utter failure of his ballot initiatives.  However, I suspect at this point he is just trying to salvage what he can of what is left of his current term, in order to say he at least accomplished something while he was gov.

2) What do you think of the guy now that he's done some stuff?

*sigh*

the way he ran in the recall election, and that ballot initiative stunt made me lose just about all respect I ever held for the man.  he was a GOD in the sport of body building, and his views on family and education were actually interesting at one time.  None of that balances against him allowing himself to become a complete puppet of the neocons however.  His public apologies, and admissions of "bad policy decisions" in the media after the ballot initiative fiasco were welcome (and something the Bush administration should consider from time to time), but no apology could really cover his ass on this mess.

I'll regain a modicum of respect for him if he chooses NOT to run in the next election.

...and this is all aside from the allegations of sexual harrasment and abuse that have been filed against him over the years, which don't really impact on whether he makes a good gov. or not, imo.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,21:51   

beautiful summary. thanx.

-> more about science and reality stuff he did
1 solar initiative
2 stem cells
3 greenhouse emmissions cutting

those are better'n a lot of dems no?
am i missing info?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,22:06   

if he had started out with those things, I would be more impressed.

of course it's still reality, and "better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick" as me pop is fond of saying.

Hard to say just how much Arnie has to do with these things himself, as i haven't examined those specific issues wrt to who influenced who to finally get passage.
However, I do know these things had been bandied about for a while, even during the Davis adminstration.  It's likely the pressure from the power issue so overhwelmed most of Davis' adminstration that there simply wasn't time to deal with these specific issues (no, don't point out the irony to me), and the first half of Arnie's tenure was filled with him trying to muscle under the legislature, so again, hard to say what might have happened otherwise.  I suppose I can credit Arnie with finally being the one who managed to sign them into law, for whatever it's worth.

everything is timing around these parts.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,22:29   

Schwartzenneger is going absolutely out of his way to do basically just whatever is possible to make democrats love him. I've not lived here long, but I was trying to follow the news out here even before I moved out here all the way, and Arnold seems to have realized after his embarrassments so far that (1) attempts to push a legitimately republican agenda will only backfire on him and (2) he can't go fiscal conservative in forming the budget no matter how badly he wants to, because of all the ballot initiatives guaranteeing minimum funding to nearly all social programs. So he seems to have settled into a resigned realization that he can at least hold onto personal power indefinitely by just waiting until right before an election and then trying to hit the most juicy-sounding left-wing hot-button issues he can find. How much, if any, of what he is doing as part of this strategy he believes in, I cannot begin to venture to guess. I can, however, tell you that it is going to get him re-elected.

Meanwhile, Angelides, the democratic candidate in this election comes across as an enormous slimeball. I somewhat doubt he is a slimeball, but he is doing a terrible job of selling himself. I already know people who won't vote for him because they bought some line that his competitor was pushing during the primary based around the idea that the Angelides is an ex land developer, and will supposedly do things in power that would be good for land developers hurting the environment etc. I'd practically imagine that  most of the voterbase doesn't even have a clear idea who Angelides is; he barely seems to be campaigning, the only reason I even really know anything about him was because I personally went to the effort to look him and his platform up. Maybe he's written off the bay area and is campaigning elsewhere, I don't know. Either way, it looks to me like he very likely would in fact fulfill if elected his campaign promise of balancing the perennially screwy California budget without gutting less-flashy-sounding programs (like Schwartenegger is resorting to)... and really, when it comes down to it, getting the budget settled seems to me like just about the only state-local issue that isn't just dessert topping... and he's making increasing educational funding a priority... but I'm doubting he has any chance of being elected so whatever.

In the absence of any credible alternatives to Schwartenegger, I find it hard to care whether he means what he's saying or not. All I know is that he is trying very hard to nakedly pander to the kind of voter I represent, and I don't have to trust him to benefit from that.

The above is as near as I can gather, you may want to give more credence to anyone who's lived here longer than this year.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,03:39   

Hello. I live in California. I've been voting here for 20 years, mostly as a Democrat, now as an "Independent."
Oi, where to begin. California politics sucks.
Following Gray Davis' first-ever gubernatorial recall in California history, Ahnuld beat a lackluster field of democrats (Cruz Bustamante?!?! Bleh) to become the governator. He had huge poll ratings, higher than REAGAN at his peak, fer chrissakes, then he stumbled all over the place.
Ahnuld earned the emnity of the police, teacher, nurses and firemen's unions along with that of the American Indian gaming lobbyists who are second only to the prison guard union in terms of donations (the prison industry is big in California.)
He tried to force through 4  "reform measure" ballot initiatives that would have handed him a great deal of power, but all of these were defeated (with help from the above "enemies"), plummeting Ahnuld to his lowest ebb.
BUT...truth be told, he hasn't done a bad job. His actions, along with the legislature, have increased California's bond rating. Like Ichthyic said, he dumped his Karl Rove-style ( he actually did meet with Rove previously) advisors and hired some moderates, began working with the Dem leaders, and has taken some shrewd steps ( like the "green" measures you mentioned) to reposition himself.
Okay. So. Elections are coming up soon and he's running against Phil Angelides, who won in the Dem. primary despite having the visual appeal of a shaved tree sloth and the speaking skills of ....well, he's not very good. I would have preferred his competitor, Steve Westly, who unfortunately shot himself in the foot a few times...even though polls showed he was likely to **beat** Ahnuld in a heads-up race. Angelides brought in truckloads of money from real estate developer cronies and eked out a win. So it's The Terminator v. The shaved sloth and frankly, I can't see Angelides winning, although I'll vote for him if I feel I *have* to. Frankly, a pox on both their houses.
But Ahnuld...well, he really isn't as bad as I expected. I'm actually tempted at times to vote for him just because the economic recovery plan he forged with the democratically controlled legislature appears to be working. And i **really** don't trust Angelides, since I like natural undeveloped coastlines and controlled expansion and I know virtually nothing of Angelides' ACTUAL "plans".
Oh, you also overlooked Ahnuld's approval of stem-cell research in direct contrast to the Shrub, and his refusal to allow Cal. Nat'l Guardsmen on the border, his hydrogen "refueling stations" initiative, and his disapproval of expanded oil exploitation off the coast

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:54   

Quote
1 solar initiative
2 stem cells
3 greenhouse emmissions cutting


THat's #2 :)

I forgot about the Nat'l guard thing though. And that's just what I mean. Whereas Bush the lesser when faced with a choice chooses the option from the "wrong" column, arnold appears to be choosing from the "right" column. He's listening to silicon valley repubs maybe more than lockheed repubs now?

I mean, I'd vote for a guy who favors city planning over sprawl, science over ignorance, peace over war and environmental protection over rape and run republican normalcy.

I'd like a guy who outlawed private prisons too but hey, the above is the core of a good platform to me I guess.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:45   

Ichthy's summary is pretty darned accurate. Arnold is one of the most egomaniacal people who's ever graced American politics, which is saying something. He basically began his political life as a Grover Norquist-cum-libertarian style Republican, which I think was honestly where he was really coming from -- I don't think it was a pose. He did seem to like all those ideas about drowning the federal govt. in the bathtub, but he didn't seem to have anything against gays, on the other hand. He entered the California statehouse with not the slightest intention of working with the massively Democratic state legislature, but essentially intimidating them into giving them whatever he wanted. When that went precisely nowhere, he came up with those vile ballot initiatives, which had the explicit purpose of getting the voters' permission for him to ignore the legislature. When those all went down in flames (the first GOOD political news I'd experienced for years), Arnold basically had a near-death experience. The funny thing was, he really didnt seem to see it coming -- I think it was the first time in his life when bullying and sheer force of will had failed to give him what he wanted, and so he had no idea what to do. As a man who had never gotten anything by compromising, he seemed quite bewildered, and his first reaction was to sort of disappear for a few months. He immediately went overseas for a few weeks, dropped out of the newspapers for a few months, etc. If you're used to his usual noisy egomania, it was quite a contrast.

I think what's going on now is he finally has advisors who are attunded to whats actually necessary to win elections in California, not just what California's notoriously dysfunctional Republican party wants. They seem to be telling him that since he's going up against an incredibly uncharismatic Democratic opponent, all he has to do to win is to do some high-profile things to make leftwing voters happy. This probably will work -- it'll make women voters distrust him less, it'll lure moderate Democrats over, and with Republicans having nowhere else to go, I don't see how he could screw this up.

I personally don't trust the guy, and do not intend to vote for him, but I guess as long as he has a permanent Democratic majority in the legislature (which won't change anytime in the foreseeable future), he can't do anything *too* objectionable.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,08:19   

I've always thought it was a good idea to have the executive and legislative on opposite sides of the spectrum.
ial
Now if we could only shut down the military-industrial complex's control over both. ???

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,09:53   

wow, I had no idea so many of us regulars here were actually from CA.

Ok, so raising my hand...

Palm Springs.

(no fish out of water jokes, please)

Quote
Now if we could only shut down the military-industrial complex's control over both.


funny thing, that.  In the 70's and 80's the defense industry in CA was second only to agriculture in revenue generation for the state.  With the end of the cold war, a lot of that money went away, and CA never has really recovered a replacement consistent revenue source.

technology (think Silicon Valley), worked as a suitable replacement for a good portion of the 90's, and we saw a rapid surplus start to build, which was then quickly wiped out with a combination of natural disasters, the power crisis, and the internet investment implosion.

CA is in very dire straights.  the most populous state in the US, and still has a consistently large growth rate.  Poor public transportation for most of the state, poor growth plans, horrible problems with water resources (this is becoming the largest issue of all), a critical shortage of power resources, and no consistent source of income aside from agriculture and tourism.  Even the agriculture is threatened in many areas because of the lack of water resources, and we are seeing salt intrusion in many areas because of overusage of groundwater.  The massive fires in So. Cal. are mostly due to a combination of drought and a massive invasion of a species of bark beetle that has been literally wiping out entire forests up and down the state.

The issues mentioned that arnold signed are really merely "hotbutton" issues.  The real issues for this state are far to onerous to deal with in a single bill.  Arnold, being an actor, got a quick education in the fact that he was grossly ignorant of the real problems, both political and resourcewise, that exist in this state.  Truly, it WILL have to be a massive team effort to even begin to tackle the problems this state faces, and Arnold wasted two years listening to the neocons that he really didn't have to waste.  

I wonder if he still drives his favorite Hummer everywhere?

the job of gov. in this state has always been a critical one, both from a political standpoint (as a launching platform for the presidency, for example), and as being the leader for the 13th largest GNP in the world (last i checked, if you made CA an "independent" country- might even be in the top ten now).  It was a daunting position BEFORE the recall.  Now... who in their right mind is going to WANT to be governor of a state with so many huge issues facing it?

You may think me a pessimist, but I truly see a dismal future for CA, with the water issue being the the biggest problem of all.  Remember what I said about CA's biggest source of income being agriculture?  So. Cal. used to get a large portion of water for agricultural, industrial and residental use from the Colorado River.

Not anymore; for a while now, the amount of water allocated to CA from the Colorado river has steadily declined (drought, rising pops in other states, etc.).  about 2 years ago, the issue came to a head, and many places (where i live being one) are no longer allocated a tenth of the river water they used to be.  er, except this place, for example, has grown 180% since the first time I lived here in 1991.  Which means, of course, ever heavier draws on the underground aquifers (which are rapidly being used beyond replacement).  If anybody recalls what happened when Vegas overrused their own underground aquifer... you might get some idea of what is happening here too.  Of course, this isn't unique; it's happening all over the state.

for years now (decades, even), many agricultural areas in CA have had problems with salt invasion as they overuse their underground aquifers.

I do wonder what will happen as:

-less and less new water resources become available
-more and more salt intrusion ruins agricultural land
-more and more good ag land is rezoned for commercial and residential use
-the population of the state keeps growing at a phenomenal pace

If someone sees the silver lining in all this, do let me know.

I'd end with "cheers", but after a rant like that, I guess it would be hypocritical.

;)

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,10:00   

SF Bay Area. Just 10 minutes from Dave Fafarman, Larry's brother.  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,10:24   

lol.  ever met Dave's bro?

I spent 4 years living in the East Bay, and 9 years living in Santa Cruz (Monterey Bay area).  I loved SC.  I'd still be living there now, but it's gotten far too expensive.

too many dotcommers from SJ moved there and basically ruined it, from an economic standpoint.  Real estate values jumped about 200% over a 6 year span, with corresponding increases in rents, but no corresponding increase in local wages.

ahh, such a familiar pattern for anybody who has spent much time moving about this glorious state.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,10:47   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,15:24)
lol.  ever met Dave's bro?

I spent 4 years living in the East Bay, and 9 years living in Santa Cruz (Monterey Bay area).  I loved SC.  I'd still be living there now, but it's gotten far too expensive.

too many dotcommers from SJ moved there and basically ruined it, from an economic standpoint.  Real estate values jumped about 200% over a 6 year span, with corresponding increases in rents, but no corresponding increase in local wages.

ahh, such a familiar pattern for anybody who has spent much time moving about this glorious state.

I grew up in the Bay Area, left for college, but came back in '85. The only reason I can sort of afford it now is because I got in several years ago. If I sold my place and left, I'd never be able to get back in in a million years.

What's really sick is when you talk to people here who bought their houses in the 1970's, have paid off their little mortgages, and who now pay nothing more than the princely sum of $200 a year in property taxes.

One upside to the dotcom boom crashing is that traffic actually dropped a lot on several freeways. And rents in a lot of places cooled WAY off...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,11:10   

Quote
One upside to the dotcom boom crashing is that traffic actually dropped a lot on several freeways. And rents in a lot of places cooled WAY off...


rents have cooled off you say?

hmm.

tempting, but I think I'm gonna stick with my plan to bail on the whole thing and go back about 20 years to NZ.

I'm hoping in another 20 years, I'll be able to say things like your aquaintances in the Bay area.

"Yeah, I moved here in '06, and now I only have to pay 200/yr in taxes".

In fact, I've heard several folks who have migrated there say how similar it looks economically to Orange County about 30 years ago.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,12:26   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,16:10)
Quote
One upside to the dotcom boom crashing is that traffic actually dropped a lot on several freeways. And rents in a lot of places cooled WAY off...


rents have cooled off you say?

Well, these things are relative. Rents are now merely ridiculous instead of Completely Fucking Insane.  Santa Cruz, however, is supposed to be the most expensive place to live in the US.

My best post-dotcom crash story is from 2002, when a friend of mine got $700 a month shaved off her SF apartment rent merely by threatening to move.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,12:34   

Quote
when a friend of mine got $700 a month shaved off her SF apartment rent merely by threatening to move.


yikes.

In 2001, my rent in SC (Capitola, to be more precise)jumped from 1250 to 1650 for a two bedroom in a worn out duplex infested with termites (and I had a deal, as the landlord was a friend of mine), AFAIK, it's even higher now, the guy who moved there after me was paying 1750 IIRC, and that was in 2002.

buying a home there?  I just shake my head and laugh.

The year before i left I was making short of 80K (before taxes and student loans), and couldn't even afford the downpayment on a small two bedroom house.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,20:19   

I live in Concord. Oakland or Berkeley were simply out of the budget, even for renting.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,20:32   

I really can't fathom how a current student entering grad school at UCB can even survive!

the fees have tripled since i graduated there in 91 (ask me about John Wells sometime, Wes).

and so have the rents, for the most part.

with teaching half time while i was there, combined with grants for research, I still had to take out ~10k per year in student loans just to get by for the whole year.

my god, it must be at somewhere near double that amount for most grad students now.

economics are going to radically alter the face of science even more than the current wave of xian fundie nutbars.

*sigh*

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,22:08   

**My Psychic prediction, inspired by the buddha who made the sun and moon*

Water will be the global issue of the coming century. CA is not alone. Have you heard the term "breadbasket" referring to the midwest? The Ogallala getting salinated would just ruin our day. And we wouldn't even need to live there. Not to mention Hanford and the Columbia, The Volga, The Yellow river, Ganges and etc watersheds being polluted or otherwise threatened in terms of water safety for humans.

Arnie has his work cut out. QUestion is for me more like "will he do it now or is it just lip service?"
From here in Oregon it looks like the burden of leadership was a shock to him and he is trying to do the right thing now. If so, maybe he'll figure out how.

P.S. housing has gone up here too. Even Bellinham WA (Tiny college town near Canada) has a normal house in town going for 350k. Where the heck do the folks get the $ there?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2006,04:13   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 01 2006,03:08)
**My Psychic prediction, inspired by the buddha who made the sun and moon*

Water will be the global issue of the coming century. CA is not alone. Have you heard the term "breadbasket" referring to the midwest? The Ogallala getting salinated would just ruin our day. And we wouldn't even need to live there. Not to mention Hanford and the Columbia, The Volga, The Yellow river, Ganges and etc watersheds being polluted or otherwise threatened in terms of water safety for humans.

Arnie has his work cut out. Question is for me more like "will he do it now or is it just lip service?"
From here in Oregon it looks like the burden of leadership was a shock to him and he is trying to do the right thing now. If so, maybe he'll figure out how.

P.S. housing has gone up here too. Even Bellinham WA (Tiny college town near Canada) has a normal house in town going for 350k. Where the heck do the folks get the $ there?

I agree that Arnold entered Sacramento almost totally ignorant of just how vast and complex California's problems were. I think for a while he sort of seized up when it was all explained to him.

The process of him resigning himself to working WITH the legislature came many months later.

I also agree that the really really big longterm problems California faces are basically being ignored by everyone. Big surprise.

$350K for a house ain't nothing. I get the impression that that's a normal price for a house in most desirable American cities. My house, a small postwar bungalow number from 1948, has tripled in value since I bought it 8 years ago, with absolutely no help from me -- just from sitting there. My impression is that most people 'afford' house prices like this simply by assuming vast amounts of debt.

As long as we're old people comparing stories of our youth, when I first entered the University of California in 1980, a semester's tuition was $250.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2006,06:25   

Mt. View CA., about 35 mi. south of SF, or 10 mi. north of SJ if you prefer.

Lucky enough to have bought a house here way back in '86.  It's quintupled in value since then, but the way I see it it's all Monopoly™ money.  I'd have to sell and move to Bumf*ck Idaho to recognize a real profit.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2006,07:44   

Point of B-ham is that it's a tiny dot in the middle of nowhere with barely any industry. It's got a college not much else.

You could buy a little house here in Portland for that much.

But Cali- that's another story. Prices go up when people own more than 1 maybe? Hard to say. It looks like a wasteland S of Santa Cruz to me. I can't imagine living there. Not to knock those who do, it just isn't me.

Environmental problems are big problems. We were just instructed to ignore the findings of the only serious research done in the 21st century on Halibut stocks and nutrient requirements. Reason? Politically unpopular.

Won't be long till the West Coast starts to look like the Grand Banks. We'll be paying as much for wild seafood as we would for a house in SF.

Maybe we should try for another tax cut.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2006,07:52   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,02:39)
after the Enron fiasco, there was a specific rich republican who funded a drive to recall Gray Davis

That rich republican was Howard Ahmanson.

The same guy who funds DI's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture and sits on its board of directors.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2006,18:54   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,14:53)
wow, I had no idea so many of us regulars here were actually from CA.

Ok, so raising my hand...

Palm Springs.

(no fish out of water jokes, please)

     
Quote
Now if we could only shut down the military-industrial complex's control over both.


funny thing, that.  In the 70's and 80's the defense industry in CA was second only to agriculture in revenue generation for the state.  With the end of the cold war, a lot of that money went away, and CA never has really recovered a replacement consistent revenue source.

technology (think Silicon Valley), worked as a suitable replacement for a good portion of the 90's, and we saw a rapid surplus start to build, which was then quickly wiped out with a combination of natural disasters, the power crisis, and the internet investment implosion.

CA is in very dire straights.  the most populous state in the US, and still has a consistently large growth rate.  Poor public transportation for most of the state, poor growth plans, horrible problems with water resources (this is becoming the largest issue of all), a critical shortage of power resources, and no consistent source of income aside from agriculture and tourism.  Even the agriculture is threatened in many areas because of the lack of water resources, and we are seeing salt intrusion in many areas because of overusage of groundwater.  The massive fires in So. Cal. are mostly due to a combination of drought and a massive invasion of a species of bark beetle that has been literally wiping out entire forests up and down the state.

The issues mentioned that arnold signed are really merely "hotbutton" issues.  The real issues for this state are far to onerous to deal with in a single bill.  Arnold, being an actor, got a quick education in the fact that he was grossly ignorant of the real problems, both political and resourcewise, that exist in this state.  Truly, it WILL have to be a massive team effort to even begin to tackle the problems this state faces, and Arnold wasted two years listening to the neocons that he really didn't have to waste.  

I wonder if he still drives his favorite Hummer everywhere?

the job of gov. in this state has always been a critical one, both from a political standpoint (as a launching platform for the presidency, for example), and as being the leader for the 13th largest GNP in the world (last i checked, if you made CA an "independent" country- might even be in the top ten now).  It was a daunting position BEFORE the recall.  Now... who in their right mind is going to WANT to be governor of a state with so many huge issues facing it?

You may think me a pessimist, but I truly see a dismal future for CA, with the water issue being the the biggest problem of all.  Remember what I said about CA's biggest source of income being agriculture?  So. Cal. used to get a large portion of water for agricultural, industrial and residental use from the Colorado River.

Not anymore; for a while now, the amount of water allocated to CA from the Colorado river has steadily declined (drought, rising pops in other states, etc.).  about 2 years ago, the issue came to a head, and many places (where i live being one) are no longer allocated a tenth of the river water they used to be.  er, except this place, for example, has grown 180% since the first time I lived here in 1991.  Which means, of course, ever heavier draws on the underground aquifers (which are rapidly being used beyond replacement).  If anybody recalls what happened when Vegas overrused their own underground aquifer... you might get some idea of what is happening here too.  Of course, this isn't unique; it's happening all over the state.

for years now (decades, even), many agricultural areas in CA have had problems with salt invasion as they overuse their underground aquifers.

I do wonder what will happen as:

-less and less new water resources become available
-more and more salt intrusion ruins agricultural land
-more and more good ag land is rezoned for commercial and residential use
-the population of the state keeps growing at a phenomenal pace

If someone sees the silver lining in all this, do let me know.

I'd end with "cheers", but after a rant like that, I guess it would be hypocritical.

;)

Water policy in CA is atrocious, but it's not much worse than it is elsewhere in the western half of the US.  Water policy has pretty much sucked for, oh, 150+ years.

Actually, in CA, the overuse of groundwater isn't the actual cause of salinity problems.  The problem is the ground itself.  (The problem with the overuse of groundwater is... the overuse of groundwater.  Unlike oil, which can never be replaced, aquifers do replace themselves over time, but  that is hardly comforting when you remove several feet a year and nature replace just a few inches...)

Back to salinity: as a contrast, the Colorado River has high naturally occuring saline sources feeding into it.  On its way to the sea (if it actually still got there...), the same water gets used multiple times for irrigation, resulting in the Colorado getting increasingly saline.  (Farmers use it and what doesn't get used by the crops flushes back through the soil through salt deposits and into the Colorado again.)

How this relates to CA is that in places such as the southern San Joaquin, there's often a layer of impermeable clay sitting just a few feet down, so whatever salts are in the water used for irrigation get perched there and have nowhere to be flushed.  Eventually, the salts build up into the root zones of the crops, killing them and also making the land useless for agriculture.

(Although I wish I could claim to be original, what I just wrote paraphrases Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert.)

The history of water policy in the western US is actually a fascinating read (except for the mind-numbingly boring Battling the Inland Sea).

Not that it matters, but I'm in Seattle, where we are still ticked off about CA trying to divert the Columbia River...  :)

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,10:30   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 01 2006,12:52)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,02:39)
after the Enron fiasco, there was a specific rich republican who funded a drive to recall Gray Davis

That rich republican was Howard Ahmanson.

The same guy who funds DI's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture and sits on its board of directors.

According to whom? As far as I know, Darrell Issa was the "rich republican." (Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory parade, Lenny.)

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,10:38   

The problem with Arnold is that he is not conservative enough. I voted for Tom McClintock in the recall and would do so again.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,10:56   

Quote

Avenging angel of the religious right
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6

In 1992, Ahmanson banded together with four right-wing businessmen to back the campaigns of anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-big business candidates; two years later, they scored their first major victory, propelling the GOP's takeover of the California Assembly. With $3 million funneled through seven pro-business, anti-abortion and Republican political action fronts, Ahmanson and company captured a startling 25 of the GOP's 39 legislative seats for their candidates. Their push ushered two important movement cadres into power: Tom McClintock, a veteran activist and former director of economic and regulatory affairs of the Ahmanson-funded libertarian think tank Claremont Institute; and Ray Haynes, an unknown lawyer from another Ahmanson-funded group, the Western Center for Law and Justice, which once filed a brief defending a local school district for banning Gabriel Garcéa Marquéz's novel "One Hundred Years of Solitude."

Upon seizing power, McClintock sponsored a bill returning the death penalty to California, while Haynes led a failed 1995 attempt to ban state funding for abortion and numerous futile fights to block anti-hate crime and domestic partnership legislation. In 2003, the two Ahmanson cadres became instrumental figures in propelling the campaign to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. In March 2003, Haynes personally convinced a fellow arch-conservative, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, to bankroll the recall ballot qualification. After the recall qualified with the help of $1.7 million from Issa, McClintock entered the recall campaign, ultimately finishing third as the token cultural conservative. As in 1992, Ahmanson's camp provided the groundwork for McClintock's campaign: John Stoos, an avowed Reconstructionist associated with Chalcedon, served as his deputy campaign manager, and Ahmanson hosted some of the most prominent leaders in the Christian right for a fundraiser in Colorado in September that, according to the Los Angeles Times, raised $100,000 .

To complement his electoral efforts, Ahmanson has pumped enormous amounts of money into ballot measure committees, dramatically altering California's social landscape in the process. In 1999, Ahmanson helped to sharply restrict affirmative action in California with a $350,000 donation to Proposition 209; that same year he helped ban gay marriage with a donation of $210,000 -- 35 percent of all total funds -- to Proposition 22. To avoid giving voters the impression that Prop. 22 was somehow anti-gay, its "Protection of Marriage Committee" spent nearly half of Ahmanson's donation on billboards presenting the measure as "pro-family."

Despite his penchant for behind-the-scenes string-pulling, Ahmanson's anti-gay campaigns have attracted close scrutiny by Jerry Sloan, a Sacramento gay-rights advocate and founder of Project Tocsin .

"Ahmanson's financing of these various initiatives both statewide and locally and his financing of anti-gay legislators who fight tooth and toenail against any legislation that would protect people or enhance our rights as citizens has made the struggle for our rights probably two or three times harder than it should be," Sloan told me. "I can't think of anybody who's more dangerous to the average Californian than Howard Ahmanson."

Link to Salon Article

Robert Obrien,
What do you think of global warming, peak oil, deforestation, and land salinanization in terms of large problems that we should be dealing with politically?
-I only know a few repubs of the McClintock variety.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,11:34   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 03 2006,15:38)
The problem with Arnold is that he is not conservative enough. I voted for Tom McClintock in the recall and would do so again.

Fortunately no one like McClintock will ever get elected to the California governorship. California ain't Texas and it ain't the sixties anymore. You may remember McClintock did quite poorly in the recall. Californians are willing to vote for an economic conservative, but the religious right routine will not fly here any more than it would in New England, New York, or Illinois.

The reason Schwarzenegger isn't as conservative as you want him to be is that he couldn't do that in California without getting eaten alive. Plus I think Schwarzenegger genuinely does not believe in the Christian right dogma. Like I said, I think he basically came to office a Grover Norquist-style libertarian.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,13:02   

[quote=Arden Chatfield,Sep. 03 2006,16:34][/quote]
Quote
Fortunately no one like McClintock will ever get elected to the California governorship.


There is nothing fortunate about it.

Quote
California ain't Texas and it ain't the sixties anymore.


Apparently, you have forgotten that Deukmejian was governor in the eighties, right after Governor Moonbeam. (Pete Wilson was also a Republican governor, of course.)


Quote
You may remember McClintock did quite poorly in the recall. Californians are willing to vote for an economic conservative, but the religious right routine will not fly here any more than it would in New England, New York, or Illinois.


Those states do not have a large influx of Mexicans, who tend toward social conservatism. If the Republicans are ever able to successfully court them then California liberals will be SOL.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,13:06   

Quote
California ain't Texas

Truly.
But the irony of it is, I'd love to have the opportunity to vote for Kinky Friedman.

Ahnuld vs. Angelides? no good choices there.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,13:18   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 03 2006,15:56)
Robert Obrien,
What do you think of global warming, peak oil, deforestation, and land salinanization in terms of large problems that we should be dealing with politically?
-I only know a few repubs of the McClintock variety.

Global warming--If the null hypothesis is that there is no global warming and the alternate hypothesis is that there is global warming, I think the cost of making a type II error is such that we ought to curb our "greenhouse gas" emissions even if some climatologists continue to dispute there is sufficient evidence to conclude global warming has occurred and continues to occur.

Peak oil--eh?

Deforestation--deforestation certainly concerns me and I think, on the whole, the government's management of our forests has been inept. I disliked Gail Norton as Secretary of the Interior and I am glad to see her go.

Land salinization--I'm afraid I don't know about this issue. I am alarmed by the loss of topsoil, however.

One thing you did not mention is power in CA. I would like to see a move toward decentralized micropower alternatives in the future.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,13:44   

Quote
     
Quote
Fortunately no one like McClintock will ever get elected to the California governorship.


There is nothing fortunate about it.


Poor baby. I disagree. It's one of the things that makes California such a more enlightened place to live compared to such vibrant havens of conservatism as, say, Mississippi, Idaho, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

     
Quote
     
Quote
California ain't Texas and it ain't the sixties anymore.


Apparently, you have forgotten that Deukmejian was governor in the eighties, right after Governor Moonbeam. (Pete Wilson was also a Republican governor, of course.)


I haven't forgotten those things at all. You have forgotten that Deukmejian and Wilson weren't religious conservatives.

     
Quote
     
Quote
You may remember McClintock did quite poorly in the recall. Californians are willing to vote for an economic conservative, but the religious right routine will not fly here any more than it would in New England, New York, or Illinois.


Those states do not have a large influx of Mexicans, who tend toward social conservatism. If the Republicans are ever able to successfully court them then California liberals will be SOL.


Yeah, and if my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle.

Won't happen, the California GOP is much much more comfortable demonizing Mexicans for cheap political points. That's what Wilson did, and it cost the GOP the California Hispanic vote ever since. The tipping point in California politics came when Hispanics finally started voting in big numbers in the late 80's. With the exception of Schwarzenegger, California Hispanics have voted Democratic ever since, including Congressional races, Senate races and the presidential races.

Republican social conservatives are a minority in California, period, and that trend is not going to reverse itself. This is why Bush doesn't bother to campaign here, and that's why Schwarzenegger had to slam so far to the left just to survive. The sociopolitical agenda McClintock represents for is one designed to please conservative white Protestants, and Hispanic voters (and black voters) understand that perfectly well. And the political future of California does not lie in the hands of conservative White Protestants.

 
Quote

But the irony of it is, I'd love to have the opportunity to vote for Kinky Friedman.


I completely agree.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,13:52   

What makes you think Tom McClintock is a "religious conservative," especially in the mold of Southern politicians? When he was in the recall race I saw him talking about issues like taxes and CA infrastructure, not posting the 10 Commandments.

McClintock is a social conservative but he ain't a politician with only one string on his banjo.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,13:57   

Tom McClintock's "OnTheIssues" profile.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,14:35   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 03 2006,18:52)
What makes you think Tom McClintock is a "religious conservative," especially in the mold of Southern politicians? When he was in the recall race I saw him talking about issues like taxes and CA infrastructure, not posting the 10 Commandments.

McClintock is a social conservative but he ain't a politician with only one string on his banjo.

Took me about 4 minutes to find this one:

     
Quote
No legal rights for same-sex couples

Q: Do you support the bill to give same-sex couples most of the same legal benefits as married couples?
McCLINTOCK: I would veto it. I do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But I draw the line when they ask the government to approve or disapprove it of it.
Source: Recall debate in Walnut Creek Sep 3, 2003


And about 10 minutes to find this essay:

     
Quote


Why the Pledge Matters
By Tom McClintock

7/3/2002


Get Updates
There is a reason behind the movement to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance - and from our national customs, and our currency, and our public ceremonies. It has very little to do with atheism. It has a great deal to do with authoritarianism.

The philosophy of the American Founding is unique among the nations of the world because of a bedrock principle that was given expression with words in the Declaration of Independence that are old and familiar, and yet not often pondered these days.

In the American view, there is a certain group of rights that are accorded absolutely and equally to every individual and that cannot be alienated by others. The existence of these rights is beyond debate - "self-evident" in the words of the Founders. And their source is supreme - "the Creator." "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

What are these rights? They are rights that exist as a condition of human life itself. If an individual were alone in the world, the rights he has are those rights the Founders traced to "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God." In their words, "...that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The right to the fruit of our own labor, the right to express our own sentiments, the right to defend ourselves, the right to live our lives according to our own best lights - in a word, Freedom.

But how do we secure these rights in a world where others seek to violate them? We form a government servient to these God-given rights - or more precisely, a government under God. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." In the American view, the only legitimate exercise of force by one individual over another, or by a government over its people, is in the defense of these natural rights. This concept is the foundation of American liberty. And because it defines limits to the powers of government, it is supremely offensive to the radicals of the Left. They abhor the words "under God" because these words stand in the way of an all-powerful state.

The French and American revolutions were waged on precisely the same declared rights of liberty and equality. One was a ghastly failure that ended in the reign of terror; the other, a magnificent success. Why? In the philosophy of the French Revolution, the rights of man were defined by a governmental committee and extended at the sufferance of that government. In the American view, these rights come from God, their existence is preeminent and their preservation is the principal object of government.

If the source of our fundamental rights is not God, then the source becomes man - or more precisely, a government of men. And rights that can be extended by government may also be withdrawn by government. Words matter. Ideas matter. And symbols matter. The public furor fomented by the Ninth Circuit Court over the Pledge of Allegiance must not be devalued as a mere defense of harmless deistic references and quaint old customs. The principle at stake is central to the very foundation of the American nation and the very survival of its freedoms.


He's basically on record as opposing abortion and gay rights. Moreover, he's the former director of economic and regulatory affairs for Ahmanson's Claremont Institute. I think all that qualifies him as a 'religious conservative'.

Also, the connections in this article, where it's revealed that his campaign manager was John Stoos, a Christian Reconstructionist associated with the Chalcedon Institute, don't exactly make me feel any more warmly inclined toward him.

Just because he can talk about things other than Jesus doesn't mean he's not a Christian Conservative. In fact, I assume that's why you like him, which is your right. Just don't try to snowjob me on his politics.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,16:38   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 03 2006,16:34)
Plus I think Schwarzenegger genuinely does not believe in the Christian right dogma.

The fundies don't think so either.  They've labeled him as a RINO (Republican In Name Only -- along with Guliani and a few others) and have targeted him for removal.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,17:20   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 03 2006,21:38)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 03 2006,16:34)
Plus I think Schwarzenegger genuinely does not believe in the Christian right dogma.

The fundies don't think so either.  They've labeled him as a RINO (Republican In Name Only -- along with Guliani and a few others) and have targeted him for removal.

Oddly enough, I'm glad to hear it -- because if they 'remove' Schwarzenegger, he'll be replaced with a Democrat. That's what I'm trying to say -- the kind of Republican that the fundies want as governor of California could not get elected here. (That goes for New York and Rhode Island, too.) Happily, the California GOP is too backwards to understand this.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,20:04   

Quote
Darrell Issa was the "rich republican." (Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory parade, Lenny.)


other than the name, Lenny is right about the conspiracy.

thanks for the name though, i do notice that i tend to block Issa's name from my mind most days.

did you see him on Bill Maher the other night?

*shudder*

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,20:55   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 04 2006,01:04)
Quote
Darrell Issa was the "rich republican." (Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory parade, Lenny.)


other than the name, Lenny is right about the conspiracy.

Lenny is right about the name, too:


http://www.politicalamazon.com/cr-ahmanson.html#pa

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/higher_frequency.html

http://www.arnoldexposed.com/articles/scene_set_ballot_battles.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200311/ai_n9307694




As for the conspiracy, keep an eye on those computerized voting machines:


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0307/S00147.htm


http://www.politicalamazon.com/cr-ahmanson.html#diebold


http://www.fairelections.us/article.php?id=104



Notice whose name (and money) keeps popping up all over the place . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,09:54   

Lenny, Issa is the one that pushed the recall of Schwarzenegger.  I was there.

He used it as a platform to help launch his own political career.

I'm sure some of Howard's money found its way into the mix, and doubtless he acted with the backing of the OC neocons, but it was still his baby.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,10:28   

Did someone mention peak oil?

The oil drum - a website about peak oil

That should answer your questions.  Despite a certain amount of stupid people involved and hot air, I think there is a real issue here, and its coming up soon.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,11:07   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 03 2006,18:18)
Quote (BWE @ Sep. 03 2006,15:56)
Robert Obrien,
What do you think of global warming, peak oil, deforestation, and land salinanization in terms of large problems that we should be dealing with politically?
-I only know a few repubs of the McClintock variety.

Global warming--If the null hypothesis is that there is no global warming and the alternate hypothesis is that there is global warming, I think the cost of making a type II error is such that we ought to curb our "greenhouse gas" emissions even if some climatologists continue to dispute there is sufficient evidence to conclude global warming has occurred and continues to occur.

Peak oil--eh?

Deforestation--deforestation certainly concerns me and I think, on the whole, the government's management of our forests has been inept. I disliked Gail Norton as Secretary of the Interior and I am glad to see her go.

Land salinization--I'm afraid I don't know about this issue. I am alarmed by the loss of topsoil, however.

One thing you did not mention is power in CA. I would like to see a move toward decentralized micropower alternatives in the future.

Fair enough. Are you willing to sacrifice those ideals to make sure gays can't marry?
McClintock doesn't seem to have those kinds of issues at the forefront of his agenda.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,14:04   

I think there are plenty of pressing reasons to decrease or eliminate dependence on fossil fuels that have nothing to do with the date at which the supposed peak oil apocalypse is set to occur.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,14:11   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 04 2006,14:54)
Lenny, Issa is the one that pushed the recall of Schwarzenegger.  I was there.

He used it as a platform to help launch his own political career.

I'm sure some of Howard's money found its way into the mix, and doubtless he acted with the backing of the OC neocons, but it was still his baby.

"Follow the money."

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,14:23   

Frankly, I'm extremely uncomfortable with blaming the fall of Gray Davis on anyone except Gray Davis himself. Gray Davis's problem wasn't that somebody paid for a recall petition, his problem was that he was a horrible governor and nobody liked him. All the right-wing financiers did in the recall was capitalize on a problem Gray Davis created. If right-wing money had created the problem, then the voters wouldn't have voted by 55% to kick him out once the recall election actually came.

I am still of the opinion that the Democratic party's fortunes are not going to change until people find a way to stop letting the Democratic party send crappy candidates to the polls.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,15:21   

Quote
Gray Davis's problem wasn't that somebody paid for a recall petition, his problem was that he was a horrible governor and nobody liked him.


put simply, prove it.

Pick a specific issue you think was a critical one that you also think Davis performed poorly on, and provide the evidence to actually support that Davis was primarily responsible for the perceived failure.

I'm not saying Davis was mana from heaven, but he is also not the horrid slacktard the reps made him out to be in their gigantic ad campaign (and you might want to examine just how much money was spent on that ad campaign).

after you pick an issue to examine how Davis' team handled it, pick a similar issue from Schwarzenegger's term so far and compare.  Who was the worse governor, based on the circumstances?  Were Arnold's shockingly low poll numbers due to spins on his performance put on by the dems, or due to the diretions he himself was taking the governorship?  Why wasn't there a recall effort for Arnie, since his poll numbers reached a low that would suggest even more people hated him than hated Davis?

public perception of failure is often primarily based on TV ads paid for by political opponents, AFAICT, rather than on actual experience or performance.

be sure that your assesment of Davis is based on actual decisions he made, rather than the right's spin on those decisions.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,15:50   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 04 2006,20:21)
 
Quote
Gray Davis's problem wasn't that somebody paid for a recall petition, his problem was that he was a horrible governor and nobody liked him.


put simply, prove it.


He lost.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, even before the recall campaign began, his approval ratings were somewhere in the 30s and had been there since 2001.

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,15:59   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 04 2006,01:55)
As for the conspiracy, keep an eye on those computerized voting machines:

Note that Debra Bowen, the Democratic candidate for secretary of state, has spoken out against electronic voting. I don't know who's likely to win that race and I'm not sure at this point exactly how against it she is, but she seems to have promised at the least increased auditing for electronic voting machines.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,16:31   

Quote (mcc @ Sep. 04 2006,19:23)
If right-wing money had created the problem, then the voters wouldn't have voted by 55% to kick him out once the recall election actually came.

Given where the voting machines come from, I wouldn't be so sure they DID.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,16:34   

Quote (mcc @ Sep. 04 2006,19:23)
I am still of the opinion that the Democratic party's fortunes are not going to change until people find a way to stop letting the Democratic party send crappy candidates to the polls.

Vote for the Greens.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,17:26   

Quote
He lost.


not proof.

Quote
Also, if I'm not mistaken, even before the recall campaign began, his approval ratings were somewhere in the 30s and had been there since 2001.


and so were Arnie's after the 'referendum on the legislature'.  should we start a recall election for him too?  I could sure make a good case that the attempt to bypass the legislature via ballot initiative is thing worthy of a recall initiative.

Do you really think popularity dictates the quality of a candidate for office?

Then you support my earlier argument that most voters in CA apparently don't care for the issues one bit, so long as the candidate looks good on TV and has charisma.

My ears are still open though, if you would actually care to investigate the issues and see for yourself, instead of relying on poll data and attack ads to form your opinions.

I could be wrong, hey, maybe Davis screwed the pooch on the power issue.  You could spend a bit of time to find out.

just saying he lost is no evidence though.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,17:45   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 04 2006,22:26)
and so were Arnie's after the 'referendum on the legislature'.  should we start a recall election for him too?

Sure, go for it. Would've been a good idea.

Looks like you kind of missed your window of opportunity on that one, though.

In the meantime, it looks like in the actual election, Schwarzenegger is set to win rather dramatically. And it looks like it isn't based on "star power", it's based on a (possibly superficial, i have no idea) embrace of left-wing issues by Schwarzenegger at the last minute and a Democratic candidate who apparently doesn't know how to campaign.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,19:36   

...and you're still avoiding the issues I raised.

here, I'll simplify for you:

why do YOU think Davis was doing such a poor job?

so far your answer is:

his poll ratings were bad,

and

he lost the recall election.

can't you think of any other reason poll data goes up and down?

can you really tie poll data to his actual job performance, rather than his perceived job performance?

I don't have a problem if you answer that you can't, or you aren't really interested in doing so, but right now all you are doing is sidestepping.

Is the journalist commentary in the link you sent me based on more than perception, you think?

It certainly not an in depth analysis of the qualifications of both candidates for the position, is it.

you said:

Quote
In the meantime, it looks like in the actual election, Schwarzenegger is set to win rather dramatically. And it looks like it isn't based on "star power", it's based on a (possibly superficial, i have no idea) embrace of left-wing issues by Schwarzenegger at the last minute and a Democratic candidate who apparently doesn't know how to campaign


and yet if you look at the quoted commentary by someone who actually studies the politics, you read the following:

Quote
But others say it is convenient for the Democratic-dominated legislature to have a governor with Schwarzenegger’s star power. If anyone can sell something to voters, they reason, Schwarzenegger can. "The legislators understand they can get more out of Arnold than Angelides because Arnold has to bargain," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.


so how would you interpret that?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,20:02   

Quote
You have forgotten that Deukmejian and Wilson weren't religious conservatives.


Planned Parenthood has criticized  George Deukmejian for being "anti-choice." That combined with the fact that he is a Christian should make him a "religious conservative," according to your "reasoning."

 
Quote
Yeah, and if my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle.


And if you had nuts?

 
Quote
Won't happen, the California GOP is much much more comfortable demonizing Mexicans for cheap political points. That's what Wilson did, and it cost the GOP the California Hispanic vote ever since. The tipping point in California politics came when Hispanics finally started voting in big numbers in the late 80's. With the exception of Schwarzenegger, California Hispanics have voted Democratic ever since, including Congressional races, Senate races and the presidential races.


Yeah, history tells us that a race will never embrace a party they believe slighted them in the past.

 
Quote

And the political future of California does not lie in the hands of conservative White Protestants.


What else do the cards reveal, Miss Cleo?

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,20:15   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 05 2006,00:36)
...and you're still avoiding the issues I raised.

here, I'll simplify for you:

why do YOU think Davis was doing such a poor job?
...
I don't have a problem if you answer that you can't, or you aren't really interested in doing so, but right now all you are doing is sidestepping.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to be honest here. It just doesn't strike me as interesting enough to going to the bother of informing myself enough about the subject to have a meaningful discussion :) I've forgotten pretty much all details about what was happening in politics in 2003.

   
Quote
and yet if you look at the quoted commentary by someone who actually studies the politics, you read the following:

       
Quote
But others say it is convenient for the Democratic-dominated legislature to have a governor with Schwarzenegger’s star power. If anyone can sell something to voters, they reason, Schwarzenegger can. "The legislators understand they can get more out of Arnold than Angelides because Arnold has to bargain," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.


so how would you interpret that?

Well, this is discussion of why the democratic legislature is pushing for Schwarzenegger, not why the voters are; that particular article brings up "star power" only in that one paragraph, and only as one of two differing interpretations analysts offer as to why state Democrats are half-endorsing Schwarzenegger. Meanwhile, first off, for purposes of that particular analysis that Schwarzenegger might be better at "selling" things, the celebrity is more or less interchangeable for that nebulous "charisma" quality, which if the Democrats had just found a charismatic candidate wouldn't be a problem; and second, the actual political analyst offered is, where I bolded, talking about something entirely separate from celebrity (though I assume the "star power" bit is a paraphrase of something the analyst actually said).

So I'd interpret it as, this reminds us that Schwarzenegger’s celebrity obviously is still a factor, and it's never going to go away entirely. But it's not the root cause of the comeback; it's just made the comeback easier. Whatever celebrity power Schwarzenegger had was blown with the referendum mess. His return to favor was caused by relentless issues jockeying, and getting up close with the state Democrats. People didn't forget and forgive the whole referendum mess because they went back and re-watched Batman & Robin or whatever. If Schwarzenegger is popular again now it's because of what he's done in the last nine months, not because of what he did ten years ago. (And if Schwarzenegger's advantage is a result of his acting skill, it's based on acting he's done in the last nine months, not acting he did ten years ago...)

Meanwhile, elsewhere the article, we see neatly reinforced that one of Angelides' big problems is that he is totally oblivious to the reality of the race he is in. Angelides is basing his campaign message off of the reality immediately after the referendum debacle, when trying to link Schwartzennegger to Bush made sense (instead of reminding everyone of multiple recent events where Schwartzenegger very publicly thumbed his nose at Bush). Meanwhile we're given examples of Schwartzenegger's ads, and they're issue-focused (i.e. Angelides is fiscally responsible, and everybody hates that these days).

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,20:15   

Quote
No legal rights for same-sex couples

Q: Do you support the bill to give same-sex couples most of the same legal benefits as married couples?
McCLINTOCK: I would veto it. I do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But I draw the line when they ask the government to approve or disapprove it of it.
Source: Recall debate in Walnut Creek Sep 3, 2003


Absolutely!

   
Quote
Why the Pledge Matters
By Tom McClintock

...Words matter. Ideas matter. And symbols matter. The public furor fomented by the Ninth Circuit Court over the Pledge of Allegiance must not be devalued as a mere defense of harmless deistic references and quaint old customs. The principle at stake is central to the very foundation of the American nation and the very survival of its freedoms.


Right!


   
Quote
...he's the former director of economic and regulatory affairs for Ahmanson's Claremont Institute.


Give Lenny his tin-foil hat back. It is not Ahmanson's Claremont Institute; it is just the Claremont Institute, where he serves on the board of directors.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,20:34   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 05 2006,01:15)
It is not Ahmanson's Claremont Institute; it is just the Claremont Institute, where he serves on the board of directors.

Looking around I find several sources, including Salon and Wikipedia, say the Claremont Institute is "funded by" Ahmanson. I cannot find a hard source on this or any indication of what proportion of the Claremont Institute's funding comes from Ahmanson.

However, it says here that on the list of groups that receive money from Ahmanson, the Claremont Institute is #4 in terms of money received, just behind the Discovery Institute at #3. So the funding must be pretty significant.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,20:37   

Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna have to be honest here. It just doesn't strike me as interesting enough to going to the bother of informing myself enough about the subject to have a meaningful discussion  I've forgotten pretty much all details about what was happening in politics in 2003.


fair enough.

just don't let a subjective memory color your future voting preferences; that's all I'm sayin'.

I can't figure out, personally, any reason to vote for somebody without investigating their actual positions on issues, and hopefully any plans they have to deal with said issues, or how they have actually dealt with related issues previously.  At least whether they are qualified by experience or education to be likely to be able to address the issues in a reasonable fashion.

all too rare these days, I know.


as to the second issue, the logical conclusion seems to be that there is no reason to run any candidate that doesn't already have "draw power" coming into an election in CA.

am I interpreting what you are saying correctly?

Quote
the actual political analyst offered is, where I bolded, talking about something entirely separate from celebrity (though I assume the "star power" bit is a paraphrase of something the analyst actually said).


*smile*

I'm glad you caught that.  it's not the journalist paraphrasing at all, it's actually the journalist spinning the interpretation himself, into something not supported by the very person he quotes, as you rightly noted.

so my question is:

who is correct, the journalist who interprets the issue as the dems pushing for "star power", or the analyst who sees the dems using an encumbent who is now apparently willing to work with them rather than attempt to bypass them entirely?

I think the whole thing is an issue of relative pragmatism.

devil you know...

many have forgotten the vicious battles Davis fought with the legislature himself.

angelides represents an unknown on at least 2 levels.

makes sense the legislature might actually back Arnold under the circumstances; he was so powerless after the referendum failure that I'm sure the legislature feels he will rubber stamp their agenda for at least the near future.

hows that go again...

politics makes strange bedfellows.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,20:44   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 05 2006,01:37)
makes sense the legislature might actually back Arnold under the circumstances; he was so powerless after the referendum failure that I'm sure the legislature feels he will rubber stamp their agenda for at least the near future.

hows that go again...

politics makes strange bedfellows.

The trick is, if he turns on them again he's going to be facing a serious problem in 2008. He can just as easily die by this sword as live by it. Meanwhile, he's staved off the budget issue this long, but I think at some point in the next two years he's going to have to either start raising taxes or cutting programs. I am pretty sure he'll balk at the former and if he goes with the latter (or resurrects that idea of rolling back California's guaranteed minimum funding voter referendums), he will be basically a sitting duck if the Democrats can field anyone even remotely competent in 2008. Arnold is going to have to step VERY carefully for the next two years, and if his newfound sorta-leftism is an act, he probably won't be able to keep it up that long...

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,21:00   

And working through your post backward...
 
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 05 2006,01:37)
I can't figure out, personally, any reason to vote for somebody without investigating their actual positions on issues, and hopefully any plans they have to deal with said issues, or how they have actually dealt with related issues previously.  At least whether they are qualified by experience or education to be likely to be able to address the issues in a reasonable fashion.

all too rare these days, I know.


as to the second issue, the logical conclusion seems to be that there is no reason to run any candidate that doesn't already have "draw power" coming into an election in CA.

am I interpreting what you are saying correctly?

I'm not sure-- which second issue are you referring to exactly?

I did not vote in the 2003 recall election-- I was not a California resident at that time, though I watched sorta-closely from a distance. The Gray Davis thing, to me, is mostly important in that I see it as a parable of the dangers of Democrats assuming they'll keep their seat just because they're Democrats, or assuming that the Republicans can always be tricked into hanging themselves.

Yeah, the Republicans have all this money and stuff, and can fund huge ad campaigns and recall drives and whatnot-- but we knew that already, and the Democrats should be prepared for that already. The Democratic candidate has to offer the voters some reason to choose him that's compelling enough it can overcome the cash available to those aligned with the Ahmansons of the world. And if the Democratic candidate gets complacent (and it seems to me Angelides did just that-- waltzing in going "yeah, I can balance the budget without cutting programs" is probably enough to get my vote, but it's not going to be enough to get the rest of the electorate), then they're dead.

From the perspective of a voter, of course, all this is only particularly important in that it underscores the critical importance of getting the right people selected in the primaries... and yeah like you said, part of that is ensuring the candidate has "draw power".

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,21:31   

Quote
I'm not sure-- which second issue are you referring to exactly?


the Arnold issue and the article you linked.

the section of your post that begins after the claim of disinterest in the Davis issue, and starts with this:

Quote
Well, this is discussion of why the democratic legislature is pushing for Schwarzenegger, not why the voters are; that particular article brings up "star power" only in that one paragraph, and only as one of two differing interpretations analysts offer as to why state Democrats are half-endorsing Schwarzenegger.



...and you kind of answered it with this:

Quote
and yeah like you said, part of that is ensuring the candidate has "draw power".


so how does one get "draw power", in your opinion?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2006,08:04   

Pretty perceptive article on Schwarzenegger and California here.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,13:34   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 11 2006,08:04)
Pretty perceptive article on Schwarzenegger and California here.

Quote
With Schwarzenegger's plans for big spending, support for issues such as raising the minimum wage and embryonic stem cell research, plus a recent wave of inclusive rhetoric, the governor has styled himself as a newer, bluer Republican, or "post-partisan," as he likes to say. He unabashedly declares that the national GOP ought to take notice.

"Not only can we lead California into the future, we can show the nation and the world how to get there," Schwarzenegger said in his address. "We can do this because we have the economic strength, we have the population and the technological force of a nation-state. We are the modern equivalent of the ancient city-states of Athens and Sparta."

The action-hero governor hopes to flex the state's muscles in the national arena starting next year. Schwarzenegger told Newsweek this week that he wants to move California's primary elections to February, giving the state more clout in presidential elections.

On Monday, he unveiled a proposal to provide health insurance for all California residents, including illegal immigrants. Last year, he used his political strength to push through $42.7 billion in bonds for roads, levees and schools. In the budget proposal he will unveil Wednesday, the governor will ask for $43.3 billion in infrastructure bonds for water supply, disaster preparedness, public safety and education.

The governor has also signaled his willingness to spend money on reforming the state's collapsing prison system -- he is under a federal mandate to reduce overcrowding -- as well as environmental research, career technical-education programs and stem cell research.

This seems pretty much for real. Seems like, er..., he reviewed the evidence?
WA Post article

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,13:43   

Der Groppingfurer ran aginst Davis claiming that Davis has collected "special interest money" and was going to put the State into debt.

The bastard has broken the money collection record of Davis (collecting millions from such special interests like state contractors and the state prison guard union for example), and his spending plans will backrupt the state.

All his policies have been recycled from Pete Wilson, and now he has flipped into the Kennedy school of deficit spending.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,14:11   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 10 2007,13:43)
Der Groppingfurer ran aginst Davis claiming that Davis has collected "special interest money" and was going to put the State into debt.

The bastard has broken the money collection record of Davis (collecting millions from such special interests like state contractors and the state prison guard union for example), and his spending plans will backrupt the state.

All his policies have been recycled from Pete Wilson, and now he has flipped into the Kennedy school of deficit spending.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, I'm in Oregon where it's the voters who are wierder, but this smacks a little of sour grapes, no?

However he won and whoever he's copying, are these good policies or not? Higher clean air standards are passable, universal health care is likely not(source?? assumptions.).

He is likely to know this? Maybe not. So far, stem cell research and the first major politician to get legislation dealing with environmental concerns on  that level to the legislature might not be so bad.

I really don't know anything about CA though. It's another piece of flyover country for me usually.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,14:29   

Quote (BWE @ Jan. 10 2007,14:11)
... Higher clean air standards are passable, universal health care is likely not(source?? assumptions.)...

Why do you consider universal health care as unlikely? Or have I missunderstood? In the UK everyone is entitled to health care. Admitedly the rich people can get better treatment and priority, but decent health treatment (free at the point of delivery) is available.

Personally I think it should be modified a tad so that anyone entering the UK would need medical insurance, but we have what we have. My father (who was out of work at the time without private insurance) recieved excelent medical atention while ill. I like that about the NHS.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,14:31   

Quote
All his policies have been recycled from Pete Wilson, and now he has flipped into the Kennedy school of deficit spending.


actually, I think he's come full circle.  His new health insurance plan sounds an awful lot like some things he said many years ago, before he even thought about running for governor.

It will be VERY interesting to see if he can overcome the neocon media hurdle that is already painting him as a marxist and a socialist.

strange times, indeed.

It sure does look like he has at this point completely abandonded the neocons that originally got him into power during the recall election.

rightly so, given the mess they put him in in the first year of his tenure.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,14:38   

That certainly is what it appears to be. I'd like to know how much he listens to the state treasurer and head of his DOT. (transportation).

From all appearances, it looks like he couldn't be bought off and when he realized that's what was happening, he took two lefts. (or rights, depending how you look at it, either way it still comes to 180';)

EDIT**

Steven, because American voters have been "framed". Universal Health Care = Socialism/ Bloated Gov't on our backs/ Liberal/ commie/ pinko/ fag/ homo you're outta here for the health care remark!
-dt


Lot's of tard in the US psyche

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,14:48   

Quote
Lot's of tard in the US psyche


...and the neocons have played on that very tard for the last 30 years.

with the november "upset", I expect major media blitzes from the neocons until the 08 elections.

However, the "upset" also at least allows for a counter PR campaign, if the dems could ever get their shit together to produce a clear, evidence based, message to sell.

I personally have little hope for that.  About as much hope as I see for Arnold passing Universal Health Care in CA.

*sigh*

remember what happened to Clinton's health care plan?

yeah.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,14:57   

Quote (BWE @ Jan. 10 2007,14:38)
...

EDIT**

Steven, because American voters have been "framed". Universal Health Care = Socialism/ Bloated Gov't on our backs/ Liberal/ commie/ pinko/ fag/ homo you're outta here for the health care remark!
-dt


Lot's of tard in the US psyche

You are probably correct. I am in the UK and access to health care for all citizens is pretty much in-built in our psych. The USA is very different on that. 1 commie UK trait this right-winger likes. Mind you I am right-wing UK standard, my views would probably label me as a commie in the USA.

WTF is wrong with the "idea" that we should look after all our citizens?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,15:47   

Quote
WTF is wrong with the "idea" that we should look after all our citizens?


it depends on who you ask.

many think (have irrationally convinced themselves), that the best way to take care of all citizens is to have them take care of themselves.

regardless of the mountains of evidence showing how this HASN'T worked, they will steadfastly maintain the philosophy of it is sound.

Others have a vested profit interest that would be impacted by universal coverage in a negative way, so to maintain their value to stockholders, they are beholden to say anything to counter such proposals (smoking company CEO's in front of congressional panel:  "There is no evidence that smoking causes cancer").

others have simply succumbed to the anti-socialism movements of the 50's in the US, whereupon anything that even remotely smells of "socialism" is immediately cognitively associated with the "evils" of communism.

It indeed could be a relatively uniquely american phenomenon, from that perspective.

the question always arises, when you see an article smearing the plan as "marxist propaganda", what is the real motivation?

regardless, the US has a LONG way to go before irrational stererotypes of socialism borne of radical right wing propaganda in the 50's and later dies out.

I'd say at least another generation, if not two.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,17:37   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 10 2007,14:29)
Why do you consider universal health care as unlikely?

Because of this:


Quote
It will be VERY interesting to see if he can overcome the neocon media hurdle that is already painting him as a marxist and a socialist.


--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,17:42   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 10 2007,14:57)
1 commie UK trait this right-winger likes. Mind you I am right-wing UK standard, my views would probably label me as a commie in the USA.

WTF is wrong with the "idea" that we should look after all our citizens?

As a real live Marxist-pinko-commie, I wish "socialism" was ONE THIRD as powerful and influential here as the lunatic right wing seems to think it is . . . . .  ;)

As for why we don't take care of our citizens, the answer is pretty simple ----- we don't  *care*  about them.  Or, at least, the corporados who RUN everything, don't.

Anyway, the neocons LIKE having lots of poor unemployed people around -- it means more of them will enlist and produce a bigger Army.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2007,19:01   

Lenny, you might like "The Capitalist Revolution" by Peter Berger. It's a mite on the academic sociolgy side of writing styles (think Max Weber and a poor translation) but it raises some fascinating points.

Amazon Link.

To a full on pinko  :) especially. Main criticism, he places intrinsic value in places where it is more subjective. Main accolade: he is meticulous with his numbers and broadens the scope of the ideas of socialism/marxism/capitalism and where the deviding lines are and what each looks like in real societies through a relatively objective lens.

(By looking at the society and trying to see where on the spectrum the society is)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  73 replies since Aug. 30 2006,20:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]