Posted on 11/08/2005 8:20:03 PM PST by ajolympian2004
I am glad Arnold is not giving up, saying if that's what the people of CA want: a bankrupt state with high taxes, and businesses that flee, they deserve what they are getting.
I think we must not give up. We lost the battle, but we may win the next one.
One silver lining, both 78 & 79, and 80 got defeated.
For me in LA, another loss, the idiotic $3B bond "for the schools" passed. People seem to think that voting for money just make it appear miraculously, don't understand that it's all going to come out of OUR pockets/
We held a "populist" election and got a populist outcome. I listened to Tom Sullivan's radio program yesterday. It's a good show in that it draws commentary from a broad segment.
The reactions among the Democrats (the one's that aren't screaming lunatics) and more moderate voters come down to these: 1) Many liked the measures in the propositions but voted against them because they resent a Republican getting the win and therefore being politically empowered. 2) Resentment over having a special election in the first place. (Waste of money. Sacramento not doing it's job. Spending millions on an election, when the state is in debt, etc. ) 3) Fear of the loss of job security and worker's rights. Resentment that public employees are "looked down on" by the private sector. Fear of having this idea institutionalized.(Perception of class warfare.)
I'm not saying this is rational, it's just the expressed opinions.
I never for a minute thought Schwarzennegger would "give up". He's a big boy, not a waiter miffed over a short tip. He didn't deserve this. I like Schwarzenegger. I like having people with big agendas and ideals in government. We need idea people. But ideals and realities often clash. I'm watching and listening, and I think we may have witnessed the high-tide of partisan political reaction. We'll see.
I understand your being upset. IMHE, in re "education", it was worse in re liberal agenda, during the 90s. There was not much in re talk radio, conservatives on line, conservatives in print, conservative organizations. So many of these conservative organizations which now exist; simply were not there in the early/mid 90s. In education, CA, what was going on was going on under the cover of "silence". MSM wouldn't report. And the alternative news WAS Rush. There were pre-internet groups, and people cobbled together. So, no, I'm not gloomy. And I wish I could impart to you a better compare/contrast between then and now, so you would not despair.
David Horowitz had Heterodoxy which is now appearing online at www.frontpagemag.org.
Yes, I was one of those subscribers. Brilliant mag. One of the articles, authored by Mark Comanchero (I recall) told the story of HOW AND WHY the Democratic Party was infiltrated by Marxists. A brilliant expose. It might be this one: "The PC Academy: Survivor's Memoir".
I'm pleased Messrs Horowitz and Collier are "republishing" their Heterodoxy issues. I saved select ones; but would deliberately place issues around the SF Bay Area for others to take note of. Dittos, on Rush's newsletter, and newsletters from little known conserv organizations at the time. National Review, Conservative Chronicle, First Things, and so many more. And leave these in Doctor's offices, school board meeting tables, wineries, BART, MUNI, public bathrooms, libraries, etc. I placed a few on the Sonoma/Napa Wine Train; stepped away, only to observe a man pick one up and smile, and begin reading it. You see, I learned this from watching the liberals do it with their "news" items. Especially, the gay lobbyists. They'd pull books and leave them open on library tables, etc. I'd buy conserv books and gift these to the public libraries. In the SF Bay Area the absence of conservative books, or alternative views was HUGE. Biggest hugest liberal lie is that they are NOT for censorship: They are. And I resent that mightily.
Anyway, I'm recommending you might peruse these back issues. It might help you understand the progress which HAS taken place. Be of Good Cheer.
re: special elections and turnout ...
You make a good point. Had the special election been about a candidate, or a social issue like immigration or abortion or guns, we might well have won. But when a special election is about a union-related issue, the union can brainwash its members and the people who are close to them. In this case, unions convinced people that their jobs, salaries and pensions were threatened. (Americans are always nervous about their economic prospects anyway.)
The intensity of self-interest on their side overcame the less-intense interest in the common good on our side.
Not hard to see in advance. The time to talk about the common good is in a regularly scheduled election when the marginal folks are more likely to be voting anyway.
You are right, Okie. We are in a civil war with the Rats.
Unfortunately, the troops are not equipped to fight that civil war unless our Republican "leaders" not only understand this but SAY it, loudly and proudly.
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.