Posted on 06/29/2009 5:49:55 AM PDT by devane617
*SNIP*
California has 55 electoral votes. A Democrat can't win the White House without winning California. "Obama to California: Drop Dead," is not the kind of Sacramento Bee headline that the president or his party can afford.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“The US out of California, we cannot win there.”
And there's NO WAY California doesn't vote to re-elect the Manchurian Candidate, either.
The only way the Democrats risk losing any electoral votes from California is if North Korea nukes it, and its electoral vote count is adjusted accordingly.
“A Democrat can’t win the White House without winning California.”
Well, not true in ‘08, but generally so.
“If the Bee really thinks the Democrat party is in any danger of losing California’s 55 electoral votes because of a lack of bailout funds it is silly. Those people are so “devoted” they will vote for Democrats even from beyond the grave.”
California would vote to elect Osama bin Laden, so long as he has a (D) by his name.
“The only way the Democrats risk losing any electoral votes from California is if North Korea nukes it, and its electoral vote count is adjusted accordingly.”
Or, if the state is divided.
There’s a couple of ways to look at it:
1) Obama could just smile and hand over 10’s of billions of dollars, and say ‘look I saved you’. But what does that mean to him? It doesn’t mean anything that he can take credit for, really. Not only does he prop up the Democrats in the legislature, but he’ll also be propping up a Republican, although RINO, governor who will take credit for begging and kissing up to save the day. And then, he’ll have to keep pouring billions into the state year after year because the problems won’t go away.
2) Obama could just say no now, and let it and the governor go down. Then he can start pouring money into the state with a governor who will give him credit for saving the day while taking some for him/herself.
Money just does not matter to anyone other than the people who work for it. The bailout of CA was never of question of whether, but when.
Still waiting for CA politicians to cut spending, and realign agencies too numerous to cite, get serious about anchor babies and costs, etc. Bailing out will just keep the problem going.
Kolly Fornia is a hot air balloon with a huge hole in its envelope. The federal govt could throw 25 billion at it, but 12 months later it would need that much again, and again, and again. Fix the outflow, not the inflow.
No punishment for bad behavior!
Isn't the principle of curing addiction that you must hit bottom before you can rise up.
Just a thought - why not pay the Cali Pols their salary and allowances in IOUs, or better yet, make that don't pay them at all.
Hussein and the democrats have Kalifornia locked up and they know it. Just ACORN vote counting “procedures” would suffice, never mind the blacks, illegals and leftists. He doesn’t need to pander to the state and he knows it.
I really don’t think they will bail out California because the sinple fact is that there are about 20+ other states that are also in financial trouble and if you bail out one you have to do it for all and there simply is not enough money to do that for all.
The bailout of CA was never of question of whether, but when.
He wanted to be president? Let him earn the big bucks.
Bankrupt the country to "keep" California?
Bankrupt the country slower without saving the even bigger loser California Legislators?
Decisions... decisions...
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.