.
remember how i was talking yesterday about how it really didn't much matter whether the red or blue team came out on top? well, forget all that when it comes to state and local elections, because they still very much matter. and few states faced more crucial choices than did california this election year.
the results are in, and how much more fucked are we today than we were yesterday? lemme count the ways:
1. jerry brown
if you had told me a year ago that california--a state that has been bled dry by state-worker unions, their bloated salaries and pensions--would turn for salvation to the guy who
- not only foisted the state-worker unions on us in the first place, but
- whose campaign was almost totally financed by said state-worker unions,
of course, jerry brown's re-ascendency wouldn't have been possible without the help of
2. meg whitman
if you had told me a year ago that a bright, accomplished former CEO of one of california's most successful companies with an impeccable track record and a $150-million war chest would lose by 13 points to fuckin' jerry brown--again, i wouldn't have believed you. but somehow meg managed the impossible.
how'd she pull it off? she had a two-pronged strategy for failure:
- outspend and out-hardline her conservative primary opponent--and then once he was put away, do an about-face in the general and start pandering to the middle and left in an attempt to please everybody; and
- waffle, obfuscate and dodge every challenge and question that came her way
to the point that, by election day, nobody believed a word she said. she deserved to go down, but trust me--the last laugh will be on us.
and speaking of laughs, the voters of california in their wisdom also went big for
3. proposition 25
"prop 25 will ensure that the legislators don't get paid until they pass a budget!" the ads blared, over and over--and the people bought it.
what the ads didn't say was that prop 25 would ensure the speedy delivery of those budgets by reducing the pesky 2/3 vote needed to pass them to a simple majority, thus effectively giving the permanent democratic majority carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want without the necessity of a single republican vote.
so, one more vital check removed from the few checks and balances we had left. seriously--can't wait to see next year's budget.
but as bad as the passage of 25 will be for california, it's nothing compared to what happened to
4. proposition 23
the failure of which will have such profound and far-reaching implications for the state's future that it deserves its own post [i.e., i'm tired and will get to it tomorrow--but, seriously, it does].
4 comments:
I am trying to understand your latest blog. You hate Jerry Brown, you hate Meg Whitman. Who do you like? Is anyone fit to be governor? Is anyone to your liking?
I just don't understand what you are expecting. Do you think you would be any better?
But, you then go for a stab at hating Proposition 25. The only people who like Proposition 25 are Republicans. One of only two states to require a super-majority to pass a budget, it has lead to the tyranny of the minority.
California is a Democratic state and a relatively small minority of Republicans held up a budget year after year demanding all sorts of things.
If you are in the majority, you have the responsibility of governing. You should at least have the opportunity.
Prop 25 was the most sensible thing on the ballot. If the Democrats put together a budget that does not reflect the will of the people, they will be responsible and should be held accountable. Now, you have a system where the Republicans get to hold up a budget -- it is power without accountability.
In a democracy, the majority should rule. In Texas, that means that Republicans out man each other as to who is going to be tougher on crime and ignore the poor more.
Then you tease us with your view of Prop 23 -- funding almost exclusively by Valeo and other oil companies. Prop 23 would wipe out the carbon emissions regulations for years if not decades.
I understand why you oppose Prop 23 -- because you are a climate change denier. But, that's only because you ignore the science and ignore the reality. Was today hot enough for you? This year is on track to be the hottest on record. Are you going to deny that? I just do not understand because you say you are fact based in your decision making and then you turn to crazy ass web sites for your facts.
I know that you don't have tin foil covering your windows, at least not yet. But, it's kinda like that.
noblesavage: hmm...i'd've expected you to be a tad more magnanimous and gracious in victory, seeing as your team pretty much ran the table here in california last night.
but whatever--i will take your contempt and condescension in due stride, and attempt to address your points.
what was i hoping for in a gubernatorial candidate? i wanted what the state so desperately needs: a chris christie of our very own. i thought for a minute it might be meg, but only for as long as it took her to weasel her way through the first challenge on her voting record. it was at that point i realized she had no backbone, and we were fucked no matter what happened.
as for prop 25, you know damn well that the state's legislative districts were gerrymandered in the 90's to give the democrats a permanent majority, and that the devil's bargain the idiot republicans struck--i.e., slightly over 1/3 in both houses so they could have a say in budget and tax matters--has now effectively been thrown out the window.
and until the districts are redrawn--thanks to the one ray of sunshine that came outta this election [i.e. the passage of prop 20]--it will be a strict one-party budget. you're telling me that's right?
here's a prediction, noblesavage: the next budget will be passed with lightning speed (and nary a republican vote). it will, like all democratic budgets, be based on pie-in-the-sky revenue projections and thus lavishly padded. it will be signed by our new democratic governor with a triumphant flourish.
and then six months later when the revenue to pay for it doesn't materialize, the democrats will declare a financial crisis, and hold the state hostage for a massive tax increase.
you just watch--there's good times ahead.
as for prop 23: interesting that the one for which you reserved the most vitriol was the one i haven't even addressed yet.
also interesting that you find the idea of delaying the implementation of the draconian measures contained in the global warming solutions act until the state might be better able to handle them so threatening--which is all prop 23 intended to do.
but then again, red ink has never seemed to trouble you much.
California was a small oasis of sanity in a terrible November. Get ready for two years of fighting instead of trying to solve this Nation's problems.
Magnanimous in victory? Talk to Mitch McConnell who reiterated his central goal of seeing Obama be a one term president.
Magnanimous in victory? Talk to John Boehner who wants to repeal health care reform in its entirety without proposing anything in the alternative (Obamacare is the same proposal that Mitt Romney embraced as Governor and Bob Dole embraced as a Senator in opposition to the Clinton plan -- both radical socialists).
Deficits never bother Republicans when it is their deficits. Bush ran deficits of $300 to $400 billion every year he was in office without any hesitation. Instead, he cut taxes three times.
The moral to this story is that tax cuts do not necessarily spur economic growth (we had a stagnant economy during the Bush years).
There aren't that many Republican districts in California. I suspect that the bipartisan citizen redistricting will not change the make up of either the California Assembly or the Senate much.
Prop 23 was a sop to the oil companies. That makes sense if you think that continuing to burn fossil fuels with impunity makes sense. Because you think there are no repercussions to burning oil and gas to the end, you of course have the view you do. That is why, as a global warming denier, you see why Prop 23 is so obvious...and why you are misguided.
It's a big giant mess. COLLAPSE is imminent!
Post a Comment