Posted on 11/14/2005 9:02:02 AM PST by NormsRevenge
In 1945, Winston Churchill was swept from office in a devastating election defeat just days after leading England safely through World War II. As he watched in morose silence as the results rolled in, Clementine sat beside him, patted his knee and said, “If you ask me, Winston, it’s a blessing in disguise.” Churchill growled, “At the moment, madam, it is very well disguised, indeed.”
I’m not going to pretend that Tuesday’s election was anything other than what it was: an unmitigated and stunning defeat of some of the most basic principles of good government ever put to a vote: that government should live within its means; that politicians shouldn’t chose who gets to vote for them; that teachers should demonstrate sustained competence before they’re granted lifetime tenure; that public employees have a right to decide for themselves what candidates they’ll support with their own money; and that parents have a right to know if their teenaged daughter is undergoing an abortion.
Nor am I going to pretend that the election can be easily dismissed as a fluke. It was a major setback in the cause of reform and a major victory for the government unions that are now ascendant, emboldened and unchallenged in their domination of our political and legislative process.
There are many lessons to be learned and to be learned well. But as Mark Twain warned, “We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits on a hot stove-lid; she will never sit on a hot stove-lid again--and that is well; but also she will never sit on a cold one anymore."
I have always said that it is naïve to believe that the same legislature that got California into its mess is going to get it back out. The Governor learned this during the first year of his administration, when, despite a few cosmetic and incremental successes, no serious reforms survived the legislature and the state’s finances continued to deteriorate (masked by a $15 billion infusion of borrowed money).
The governor ultimately had no alternative than to bring this impasse to a head and appeal directly to the people. He could have maintained a façade of bipartisanship, contented himself to tinker at the margins, put forth pleasing half-measures while the state’s deficit continued to mount – but he chose finally to confront the state’s condition boldly and forthrightly. And he knew that to do so, he had to confront the government unions responsible for that condition.
Should the election have been called sooner, when civic attention and the Governor’s popularity were at an all-time high? Could the reforms have been better selected, framed and crafted? Would a clearer presentation of these issues have prevailed?
Those shoulda-coulda-woulda questions are important ones and I don’t begrudge the pundits who are now raising and answering them. But they should be tempered by Teddy Roosevelt’s observation that, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again (because there is no effort without error or shortcoming), but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause…”
Now the watchword is “compromise,” but through all this soothing rhetoric there is a hardened reality: the government unions are now in a stronger political position than ever and no “compromise” will escape the Capitol without their seal of approval. And that means the state will continue to drift upon the course that has already brought it to the brink of insolvency, until the next crisis awakens voters.
Elections are decisive moments in time that record a snapshot of public judgment, but they are conducted in a dynamic world where events can quickly reshape the political landscape. If the fundamental course of the government is not changed – and the government unions have an intense self-interest and demonstrated ability NOT to change – crises will visit California with increasing frequency and intensity. In such an environment, the politics of the state could shift very rapidly.
Whatever the Governor does in response to the election, it is imperative that he levels with the people on the actual fiscal condition of the state and that he is very clear and uncompromising in presenting the solutions that must ultimately resolve it. And when watered-down and meaningless changes are all that emerge from the legislature, he must resist the temptation to proclaim them as anything more.
We humans are creatures of habit. We instinctively resist change and engineer our institutions of government to resist it as well. Change occurs in a society only after the necessity for it finally overcomes our own resistance. That is why serious reforms only come in a state of agitation – and why the recall succeeded in 2003, while the reforms to consummate that recall failed two years later. The recall proceeded while the public perceived a crisis and the reforms were attempted when they did not.
When the next crisis comes, the Governor will find a new appreciation among Californians for what he was trying to do in this election, and a more receptive electorate to do so in the next.
We didn't. I am not sure of the exact figures, but the other side spent around 250 million. Our side spent about 30 million. Money like that buys a lot of bald face lies, and I mean gigantic lies. The outcome reflected the money spent. As soon as I can retire, I am leaving the state.
Conservatives did show up in greater proportions than other registered voters, as evidenced by the two conservative red-meat issues (Prop 73 and Prop 75) doing the best of all of the ballot offerings. (See post #124)
There's Grandpa Dave's neighbors. So that's two.
I'm obviously not blaming everyone who supported McClintock. But you can read the comments on this thread and see those who are still fighting that election battle, and that weakens Arnold. Weaken Arnold, and you weaken his ability to get stuff like this through even if you didn't stay home. It's pretty simple.
There's Grandpa Dave's neighbors. So that's two.
Based on the fact that GD wouldn't support any of his other comments (see 124 and 141), I question that one as well. Regardless, since there are almost 15 million registered voters in California (over 5 million republicans), 2 voters does not support your false allegation.
------
Carly sure ripped Compaq and HP folks a new one with her merger.
So Tom is so much chopped liver now, I take it, per Maria?
Remind me again, who is Gubinor?
You asked for factual support, I provided it, so now you accuse Grampa Dave of lying. I don't normally accuse other Freepers of that without extremely good cause, and this ain't it.
2 voters does not support your false allegation.
This is getting old, but I'll keep playing and let you talk yourself into a corner. Please point out the post number and exact quote where I made a "false allegation".
Oh heck, I'll even help you out here. My first post on this subject was No. 175. Here's the entirety of that post:
Even McClintock seems to be giving credit to Arnold for doing battle on these issues. Yet some of McClintocks' supporters refuse to take their cue from their own guy, and still want to refight the last gubernatorial election. They had a chance to actually vote for the stuff they claim to believe in, yet they stayed home in the political equivalent of a temper tantrum. How short-sighted and juvenile can you get.
So where is my "false allegation"?
Citing another posters unsupported comments is hardly "factual support."
So where is my "false allegation"?
Here you go. You said:
"... they stayed home in the political equivalent of a temper tantrum. "
Secretary of State reporting of the votes for Prop 73 and 75 indicate the opposite.
There are some on this forum.
We're living in a time when supporting the lesser of two evils is more necessary than ever. Because the worse of the two evils could mean the end of this country.
So that's the "false allegation"? Okay, let's keep playing.
Who is the "they" to which I was referring? Look back at my post, and it was "some of McClintock's supporters". And it was no accident that I used the word "some", because I wasn't going to make some ridiculous, over the top statement. Nor did I claim that the number was large enough to have affected the result. I was simply making a comment about the maturity of those "some" who are still fighting the last gubernatorial election and stayed home. "Some" is a pretty easy thing to prove.
So, are you saying that there weren't any of his supporters who stayed home because they were mad at Arnold?
They weren't simply "comments". They were his personal conversations with particular individuals. Unless you believe Grampa Dave was flat-out lying, there were at least two people who believed exactly as I claimed. And unless they were unique in the entire state, there probably are more than just two. How many? I don't know, but certainly that's "some".
In general, I agree with that statement, but I am not too clear on how having judges draw up districts under the parameters of the initiative would affect our liberties. And if it didn't work well, it could be undone.
Yeah, it was clear to me also that this election came down to a simple matter of turnout. The tax-eaters turned out their voters, the taxpayers did not. Prop 73 should have passed in a landslide if more normal people showed up to vote. Fact that it lost, proves that only the liberals came out in force.
I'm not here to direct a frontal attack on my friends, and there are plenty of republican voters in California who are not freepers, who stayed home because the news media convinced them that they could teach Arnold a lesson by defeating his initiatives. Some of those initiatives needed to pass on moral grounds if nothing else.
California is a beautiful state. I'd rather stick it out here and fight then move to some nasty hellhole just because I won't have to fight.
I sense much anger in you young Padawan. Learn to control the force.
I have seen more "political capital" squandered in the past year by CA's Governor, The POTUS, The Senate and now even in the House of Representatives!!! While the cat's away, the mousey moderates will play without Delay!!!
What exactly do Republican "leaders" (/sarcasm) from the Whitehouse to the Outhouse in Sacramento have to be proud of this November, so far??? Southack is famous for his list of accomplishment on his FR homepage, but he'll be hard-put to find any worthwhile additions from November, 2005!!! (this is if at least one FReeper can remember how to spell his screen name)
What a hilarious thread this has been...
Oy....I should have known.
California consistently provides the most political entertainment by far of any state. Recently, it's been a shining example of how to do everything wrong, but if nothing else, the rest of the country can learn from California's bold mistakes. So, it's not too much of a stretch to add that to the accomplishment list. ;-)
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.