CA Legislature: GOP passes the baton

Pasadena Star News ^ | Nov. 23, 2006 | Steven Harmon and Gary Scott

[FairOpinion]

The bipartisan glow that swathed the Capitol this year may give way to partisan rancor, as combative conservative Michael Villines prepares to lead Assembly Republicans in the next legislative session, political observers say.

Villines, a Clovis Republican who was raised in San Jose, seized power by riding the support of conservative lawmakers, who rejected the more accommodating leadership of former minority leader, San Diego Assemblyman George Plescia. But the move may end up marginalizing the Republican caucus.

Jim Brulte, a former Assembly Republican Leader and a key architect of the Poizner campaign, said Republican anger simply ignores the reality that California is a solidly blue state.

Republicans are in the minority - they hold only 32 of the 80 seats in the Assembly - and generally are only able to influence legislation - on taxes and budgets - when a two-thirds vote is needed.

[FairOpinion]

Republicans should focus on having more Republican elected, instead of further alienating the electorate, by acting and being perceived as obstructionists, because you can be sure the Dems will be making sure it will be on the front pages of the news, that "Republicans obstruct timely passage of CA budget", etc.

Arnold provided the winning formula: compromise on less important items, so you can hold the line on really important ones. Arnold didn't allow the Dems to raise taxes, vetoed the government run socialized medicine "universal healthcare", vetoed driver's licenses to illegals multiple times, vetoed homosexual marriage bill, put the reform proposisions on the ballot. -- Where were the conservatives in 2005, not to mention in the 2006 elections? Instead of helping to elect more Republicans to have a better chance at a reform agenda, they keep taking suicidal actions, as electing Villines as leader of Assembly Republicans.

[goldstategop]

Yeah FO - Conservatives should drop their resistance to the Democrats and move Left. That may be the prevailing wisdom proffered by the CAGOP leadership but rank and file conservatives want no truck with it. They're in no mood to bend over for Arnold and the Democrats next year.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[fieldmarshaldj]

Get stuffed.

[Munson]

They already moved left, they helped give those two votes to put those big bonds on the November 2006 ballot.

[absalom01]

Republicans should focus on having more Republican elected...

Hard to take issue with that statement, but in California, this simply will not happen with the current legislative district boundaries.

The deal that was struck to create safe seats was criticized at the time as the "politicians choosing their electorate" (rather than the conventionally assumed reverse), and we were told was also needed to maintain control of congress. Well, that's worked out at the state level, but we had some nasty setbacks (eg CA 11 this past election) at the federal level.

Might as well hold the ground we have, I say, rather than trying to fall back to a more "moderate" position.

[AVNevis]

Democrats were essentially obstructionists for the last six years, and look where it got them.

Look, I don't deny that Republicans are to the right of most Californians on some issues. But the caucus needs to stay strong to ensure that a lively debate is at least had on every controversial issue. That way perhaps the Governor will change his mind or Democrats will tone down some of their proposals. Perhaps most importantly, it will allow the people of the state to see both sides and decide for themselves. While they may not be successful, it is important for Republicans to be a forceful opposition to the Democrats.

[FairOpinion]

"they helped give those two votes to put those big bonds on the November 2006 ballot."

So?

All that did was to give the voters a chance to vote on it.

Arnold even went the extra mile to make them separate propositions, to give people a chance to vote for or against each one.

The voters are the ones who voted for all of them.

The only ones you can fault is the ones who stayed home, instead of voting.

[FairOpinion]

Arnold put a proposition on the ballot in the 2005 special election to have the district redrawn by non politicians, and the conservatives, in their infinite wisdom and desire for self-destruction stayed home, instead of getting out and voting for it.

[FairOpinion]

"Perhaps most importantly, it will allow the people of the state to see both sides and decide for themselves."


===

They already did: defeated all of Arnold's reform propositions, voted for all the bonds, defeated most of the downticket Republicans.

What will it take for conservatives to learn to stop pushing a strategy which only results in LOSING?

[absalom01]

Exactly the opposite of what occured.

The CRA supported prop. 77. The CRP establishment types, most notably David Dreier and RPLAC opposed it because it would "threaten our congressional majority". To put it as plainly as possible, the conservatives worked for prop 77, the 'moderates' worked with the 'Rats for its defeat.

[FairOpinion]

Arnold supported Prop. 77.

The reform propositions lost, because conservatives stayed home -- they are getting pretty good at that.

[heleny]

Arnold even went the extra mile to make them separate propositions, to give people a chance to vote for or against each one.

If they weren't separate propositions, it would have been illegal to place them on the ballot.

CA requires that different topics be addressed in different propositions. So, the illegal alien clownhouse bond (1C) could not have been combined in one proposition with the levee bond (1E) or with a any other initiative such as Jessica's law (83).

Please familiarize yourself with the CA election process in the future, so that your priase for Glorious Arnold will be more meaningful.

[absalom01]

heh. You really are incorrigible.

I'll give props to Arnold for the measures he supported in November 2005. And, in that election, the analyses of the vote that I've seen show that the unions, mainly the public employee unions, simply out-spent and out-organized us, rather than the retail level conservative voter staying home in a snit. (Which did happen in this past election.)

Here's the thing: I'm posting to you because you seem sincere, but astonishingly naive. No one is more conservative than the CRA. The CRA (among other conservatives) worked hard for the passage of many of the reform measures of 2005. So how can you rationally assert that the "conservatives stayed home?" We didn't: certainly not in 2005. Not only did we not stay home, we were out in the precincts in mass, at the phone banks, and manning the GOTV efforts. Honestly, I am just curious to find out what in the world you are talking about.

[FairOpinion]

The bottom line is still that there were separate propositions and that the voters passed each one. The voters had the chance to vote for or against each one.

[FairOpinion]

"Not only did we not stay home, we were out in the precincts in mass, at the phone banks, and manning the GOTV efforts. Honestly, I am just curious to find out what in the world you are talking about."


Kudos to those of you who did.

But in 2005, as in 2006, the turnout in conservative areas was lower than in Dem areas, evidence that conservatives did stay home.

There were people here at FR advocating the defeat of Prop. 76 and advocating staying home to not help Arnold, during the special elections in 2005.

[absalom01]

"But in 2005, as in 2006, the turnout in conservative areas was lower than in Dem areas, evidence that conservatives did stay home."

It's important to understand the mechanics. In the 2005 special election, labor did a great job moving its base. We were just out worked. In 2006, I think it's clear that the retail level conservative vote was depressed.

Here's the thing: your critique is at least coherent when applied to the activist base and the organized groups -- the CRA, the women's federated, the county committees, and the CRP itself. Where you lose me is when you try to apply the 'tactical' argument to the retail voter. Politics is the art of the possible, and the average non-activist conservative voter (like any voter) is going to react based on the quality of the product on offer. Complaining that the average voter is not buying your candidates or initiatives because it's the best on offer is like criticizing a consumer for not buying your particular brand of toothpaste because even though it tastes bad, it's better at fighting cavities than the competition.

The average voter is not a political junkie he will vote his values and interest as he sees it, not as you think he ought. These are the facts on the ground, and it's pointless to complain that the world does not configure itself more to your liking. The current crop of CRP moderates decided that they could get along without the conservatives and the traditional base volunteers this time around. What happens next remains to be seen, but I don't think the 'we don't need the conservatives' or 'they have no place else to go' rationale is going to work out so well for the party.

[AVNevis]

A majority of voters did NOT vote for all the bonds. Polling shows that only around a third of voters voted for all 5; everyone else voted No on at least one. The problem is that these swing voters could not solidify on which ones to vote down. So each measure passed, but it should not be seen as an endorsement from the voters of Arnold's borrowing policies.

[CutePuppy]

Reaction from Beverly Hills - thrilled and overjoyed:
http://www.bhweekly.com/pdfs/371.pdf
(PDF archive, November 9-15 2006, page 3, City&Schools Section)

Beverly Hills Reacts to Tuesday’s Election Results
Local officials weigh in on passage of statewide bonds
By Ryan Vaillancourt

With all five state bond measures passing yesterday, and Democrats taking a majority in the US House of Representatives, Beverly Hills looks poised to capture more funding for transportation and schools.

P r o p o s i t i o n 1A, which restricts state sales tax on
gasoline for motor vehicles to transportation needs, passed
with 76% a p p r o v a l .

Proposition 1B, which passed with approximately 61% approval, will allocate roughly $19 billion dollars for statewide transportation needs. Among future local projects that could benefit from the transportation bonds is the
proposed Westside subway extension.

“If we have any hope obtaining federal funds for a subway system to the Westside it is going to be through a
Democratic congress,“ Mayor Steve Webb said. “With the democrats hopefully in control of the senate and the house
it will enhance the ability for us to obtain that funding.“

Also passing was proposition 1D, which allocates $10.4 billion to schools statewide. Of the five bond measures, 1D had the lowest support with 56% of the vote.

The measure is intended to provide relief to overcrowded public schools and improve earthquake safety. Bond funds will also go toward general facility improvements throughout the state.

“We are absolutely thrilled,” Superintendent Kari McVeigh said. “1D is going to allow us to continue modernization efforts in a district that has five schools that are very old. We have plans already submitted to the state and we’re
hoping with this money that we’ll be able to get some of those plans going.”

Board of Education President Myra Lurie said Proposition 1D will help BHUSD to fund ongoing modernization efforts.
“Clearly, the public understands the need to provide updated, adequate, and safe school facilities in order to educate our children,” Lurie said.

As of Wednesday morning, Democrats had captured a majority in the house, winning 34 seats. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is expected to become the new Speaker of the House.

“I am excited about the possibility of Nancy Pelosi becoming the first woman Speaker of the House,” Lurie said. “As a Californian, she understands the unique
concerns and issues that our state faces in the area of education.”

Having a more local effect might have been Proposition 90, which would have restricted the eminent domain powers of
all state governments. Proposition 90 failed to pass with roughly 52% of voters voting against it.

Critics of Proposition 90, including City Manager Rod Wood, warned that the legislation would have effectively eliminating practical zoning restrictions and cost tax
payers excessively.

“The defeat of Proposition 90 takes away the threat of unrestricted building in our city,” Mayor Webb said.

Democrat Debra Bowen defeated appointed Republican Secretary of State Bruce McPherson with nearly 59% of the
vote.

“I am overjoyed that my good friend Debra Bowen won for Secretary of State,” Webb said, “she’s been a good friend to Beverly Hills and she will continue to provide us with assistance when needed.