Posted on 11/08/2005 8:20:03 PM PST by ajolympian2004
TODAY, Californians are heading to the polls to vote on several major propositions that shall dramatically affect both the political and economic future of our state.
We are following the activity and will report the results.
California Propositions
2.8% of precincts reporting as of Nov 08 08:13 PM PST
Results: http://www.sfgate.com/election/
(Excerpt) Read more at vote2005.ss.ca.gov ...
Whether the number you cite is correct or not, the basic point is right.
Therefore, voters must be made to understand that "cops, nurses, blah blah blah" are not the same as the public interest. It is a difficult lesson to teach and a difficult lesson to learn. The odds are heavily against us. But we can only keep trying, so that when the inevitable disaster comes, we're ready to run a good campaign. In this state, both are needed, and both must happen at the same time.
As I said, the odds are heavily against us.
Agreed. Someone has to appoint them. The legislators who now retain the redistricting power aren't either.
2. Only three Judges (vs. 5 or 7) is too much an opportunity for slant (and corruption).
Would 5 or 7 or 9 made the measure more palatable?
3. The Judicial Council selection process of identifying Judges in the pool is hidden from public scrutiny as it is being performed by pseudo-governmental bodies and institutions not subject to transparency provisions. (The only two legislative representatives on the Judicial Council are also two leftists: Dave Jones and Joe Dunn)
It is? Funny, I saw in in the text of the proposition.
4. The nomination process will be done by the same state legislators (but much fewer of them) that this initiative is supposed to correct.
Again, the judges can have the power or the legislators themselves. The last judicial redistricting produced much better districts than we have now.
5. Legislators doing the selections only get to choose candidates from the opposite party.
So?
6. The schedule for implementation is not only aggressive, but probably not feasible (Candidates file papers before the districts are even drawn--see Rose report).
The 90s redistricting was done under pretty tight deadlines. And it worked. Besides, the SOS can adjust the filing dates to comply.
7. The Secretary of State has said the schedule is not doable, as do other experts.
Odd, I heard SOS McPherson on the radio not even a month ago saying it was possible and his office was making plans to implement it should 77 pass.
8. By most accounts published, conservatives will lose seats and Republicans will probably lose seats, while minority districts (mostly Dem) will be protected under the Baker v. Carr provisions. Some have predicted that Republicans will lose their majority in the house.
Funny, I've read just as many reports saying 77 would produce more competitive districts and perhaps more Republican leaning districts. Also, I have absolutely no qualms about losing GOP members of the House when they're the ones backing Bush's big government "conservatism" for even a shot at picking up Assembly or Senate seats.
9. Mid-decade redistricting requires use of already outdated census data. So?
10. Despite requiring voter approval of new districts, the new district maps will first be used without approval, theoretically indefinitely.
Huh? Voters will have the opportunity to approve or reject the maps in 2006.
11. From what I can determine, legislators don't draw districts today--they hire Consultants to do it for them. Under the new law, Judges will chose from plans presented to them--by Consultants. The same exact people will be drawing districts--it is only a matter of who can sell the judges as to their 'plan' being the best.
It's a matter of whose paying the check to the consultants and who those consultants are. I doubt the judicial commission would have hired Howard Berman's brother.
12. There is no evidence that districts will be more competitive, as the language of the proposed law contains no provision for considering such (in fact, prohibiting consideration of parties/candidates/encumbants etc.).
Again, not according to what I've seen. And it's a GOOD thing that party registration, candidate/officeholder residence data is to be ignored.
We need to let the government employee unions spend themselves into trouble and we'll get them within a couple of elections I think.
Basically, what a wasted head-trip I took; and because my mind can't go to the abyss, especially when it involves matters concerning the young and vulnerable: I just want to defend them from adult predators -- which I consider to be far more dangerous than a pregnancy.
You had by far the most left libs and government employee's unions voting here. They would possible legalize all kinds of horrors if few of the normal people come out to vote.
Yes, I thought CA Conservs/Repubs did very well, and in ways and for reasons that might seem "unexplainable" at this moment in time.
HEY FELLOW FREEPERS IN CA! You did better than good and especially when considering the full weight of what you were up against.
We made them waste 200 million, including special assessments to the paychecks of these union workers.
Liberals believe money grows on trees, or that they just get printed -- there's no real meaning to "dollars" -- ergo, they can never have enough. It's the "higher" amount of money given which makes them believe that someone cares. What a hoot! And they think they are so "earthy". lol. Now, begins the time when they are going to have to balance their own books. Your perspective on this is good, A CA Guy.
Lets do it again at least a couple of election cycles and bankrupt the scoundrels.
Shh! lol.
It's cheap to put up the propositions, so lets get them out there and we do two good things. #1 Impoverish the unions, and #2 Eventually the propositions we want will pass.
Pardon my bluntness, but it amounts to "political babysitting", doesn't it. :)
It's a bit moot to debate now, but here is a response to most of your comments.
2. Yes
3. Read it again. It says it happens--not how it happens.
5. More mushy middle.
6. He can't adjust the schedule or it would be beyond election day.
7. Maybe he changed his tune:
McPherson says new lines can't be in place for 2006 elections
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/05/17/state/n172956D43.DTL
10. No. Districts would be used BEFORE voter approval, and those elected would remain in office through the term, even if the districts were disapproved--see excerpt that I posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510407/posts?page=86#86
We need to be patient, do the easy thing in again presenting similar propositions and the rest can best be summed up by Dan Rather... COURAGE COURAGE COURAGE. LOL
The libs are now all over the place making a point even themselves of complaining about how much this all financially costs them, and this in an election where mostly all their people were the ones going out.
They are prime targets for destruction. Let's do these propositions again and again so we can watch them financially bleed to death. :-)
I suspect you understand a lot more than you might possibly think you do.
Early this morning when I saw the results in CA; first thing that hit me? Stem Cell Research. CA with its burgeoning liberal demographics. Going to the "doctors"; being tested. I learned a thing few years back about the great interest the CA medical community has in "race" (but not "white") research via the medical "orgs". Now, let's talk about the other industries... real estate? The last time an election cycle like this happened, RE dipped danged low in CA, early 90s. How do I know this? I'd been pondering a move out of state after seeing where CA special interests were taking the voters and the state of CA. Problem was, the dip occurred, couldn't sell our house for love or money.
So. Where are the CA Dems going to get the monies? Businesses? HA! CA Dems are going to have to "dig into" their own base for funds.
Personally, I like to think that many parts of California are not part of the normal world.
CA has become the "field research institute" for the Democratic Party.
And then I had another thought... what if the CA Dems sold a part of CA to Mexico? Before ya think I'm trying to hurt anyone's feelings.. think light first. Liberals claim to love "poor countries". But, in reality? What if they got "owned" by one. What do you think they'd think? LOL!
And as far as SF banning "military recruiters" from SF? Well, duh. lol. Let's count the "military" bases still open around SF. (The base closings was a major factor in the RE dip I referred to earlier (which is why I couldn't sell my house like lots of other CA'ers couldn't either...).
SF Dems had to ask for federal help recently with regard to their own MEDICAL MARIJUANA CLINICS! Chinese Gangs had taken these over, and the SF "fire power" couldn't (or weren't allowed to) deal with it. Lots of users of "legit" medical marijuana couldn't get their pot! (or at the prices they'd become used to.). And SF didn't learn from this, either. Oh, well.
I suspect a day of reckoning is coming and may be on us quicker than many think.
I think the anchor has been carefully crafted.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
The conservative areas are basically the inland parts of the state; liberals mass on the coast. That's a nice graphic, though judging whether conservatism is or isn't there based on a single proposition is a pretty blatant non sequitur.
Amen!
It's true that the libs aren't honest about what they are up to; but I have figured it out -- they think by "spinning" matters it makes them "smarter" than everyone else.
Ergo, foisting up-front, whole-hog marxism ==honestly== upon people, just doesn't ring their chimes. In My Experience.
OH~ Be my spy out there! LOL!! Seriously? And the Dem voters don't "get it"? Don't get what the "complaining pitch" means? Well...Bless Their Sweet Bippies! ;> You know.. the usual "Dem Campaign Supporters" The lawyer groups, the medicos, etc... had best budget for twice and thrice their annual donation. Or, as Flip Wilson woulda said: "Well, Here Come De Judge.."
If "fiscal conservative" Ahnuld had not INSISTED on taxpayer's footing the bill for ANOTHER "special election" (California has so many special elections, they can probably just abolish regular elections at this point), it probably would have been passed.
When you have an random "special election" for no reason and try to GOTV, the people who show up will be the most hard core partisans on both sides (in California, the Dems far outnumber the GOP in hard-core partisans). In a regular election (Governor, President, etc.) there are plenty of independants apolitical people who show and can be swayed to the GOP side. A measure like partential notification would easily get the support of most independants who just stopped in to vote for the top of the ticket.
Poor Arnie, he just HAD to have a "special election" instead. The REAL elections in November 2004, April 2005, and the early 2006 primary were just too long to wait!
It takes a real "fiscal conservative" to waste millions on a "special election"
Reagan did the same exact thing as Arnold 38 years ago and it seemed to work out well with him later as well.
This election was great, we forced them to spend a part of a billion to prevent a loss. They borrowed a bunch of money to fund this and will be paying this back as they prepare for an unopposed 2006.
BS, what we do is we force them to spend themselves beyond dry in 2006 as well.
They can't keep up the spending levels in elections that they did this year. They don't have the resources and will sink.
Time to keep our foot on their necks and to break them.
---hit the people with broad based taxes to wake them up - gasoline, cable TV as someone else mentioned, car fees.---
Davis doubled the car tax to pay the bills, which is what sent him to his doom. People were really upset about the car tax! The thing that's so discouraging is that the time line on this just stretched into the indefinite future. They had a good shot and they blew it.
I guess it's time to flush California, along with Oregon and Washington, down the toilet!
Why is there a concentration of liberals on both coasts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.