The Republican California Electoral Vote Scam – Method in Their Madness

This is why it is important to keep redistricting in the hands of the Democrats--fighting for competitive seats takes money and the Republicans have a lot more of it than the Democrats.
Let's not forget that in the
1990 election cycle, term limits passed in large part because the Republicans had run the Democrats (Willie Brown in particular) out of money by putting redistricting initiatives on the June primary ballot. The Republicans will always have a money advantage so the Democrats need to conserve their resources to fight Republican initiatives--would the Democratic response to 2005 have been possible if the money had been going into competitive races?

This scam by the GOP pisses me off. I hope it doesn't make it in the ballot. This is nothing but a partisan power grab.

Parties will do what's in their best interest. Its nothing more than politics as usual.

Can anyone honestly say Democrates wouldn't try the same if the rolls were reversed, and California was predominantly Republican for generations?

I predict the initiative will be on the ballot, and that it will fail.

Ah, the master propagandist again at work.

Bill, the lions share of your article sets the stage on how democrats through their own actions have caused this scenario, not replublicans:

-Democratic Assemblyman now Congressman Jim Costa set the stage for this scenario as you point out, not a republican.

-Democrats wanted the "Term Limits Initiative, Proposition 93" on the ballot early in 2008 BADLY. Evidence? The aborted California vote on Iraq was designed to bring out democratic voters in droves to vote for this and by the way while they were there, keep democratic politicians in offce LONGER via voting for Proposition 93.

"So called independent" voters? Didn't they themselves declare their own status (Uumm...Independent?) when registering? How can they be disenfranchised by anyone with a status they themselves have selected?

In short: A Democratic desire to have an earlier primary was piggy-backed on by another democratic desire to have "term limits", "modified" with the inclusion of the now vetoed California Vote on Iraq. (A vote they would only illustrate how democratic control of Congress to end the Iraq War as promised isn't forthcoming if you think about it for a second-Where is the de-funding of the war by the democratic majority congress? But I digress...)

Ironically, California taxpayers will foot the bill as you point out for TWO elections this year for the democratic desire for Proposition 93/Term Limits to get (hopefully NOT) passed. Just a couple of short years ago democrats raked Governor Arnold over the coals for the costs of his special election...

Summary: You guys did this to yourselves. You should have known all the particulars of what you have illustrated here (right or wrong as they may be) before you did them. NOW, your complaining about a scenario of your own creation. Sorta like Gore stalwarts complaining about the electoral college AFTER the election...

You desire for class warfare is demeaning and to your own cause too; "Hard partisan Democrats are working people without the discretionary time to inform themselves". I think they are smarter than that. Why don't you? Don't their republican counterparts "work" too?

As for democrats not having as much money as republicans:

1. Speaker Nunez got 3 million in contributions for his campaign last year even though he ran UNOPPOSED. (The democratic party had contributions & spent more than the republicans on state politicians last year).

2. Speaker Nunez spends campaign cash on himself: Multiple trips overseas, $4000 bottles of wine and has purchase a $1.2 million dollar home in Sacramento, nowhere near his constituents in LA. No wonder he want Proposition 93 (Term Limits "Reform" to pass, he wants to enjoy his new home in SAC!)

3. Hillary has outstripped ALL comers in campaign contributions in comparison to any other republican or democrat for that matter.

There, I just found some money for you. You can thank me later.

Methinks you have an axe to grind against Ed Rollins...

Gould opines:

You desire for class warfare is demeaning and to your own cause too.,

Class warfare was started (or, more to the point, resumed) by the Republicans in 1980 with the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan. The result has been a concentration of wealth among the top 10% at a level not seen since the Gilded Age through the 1920's. Republicans claimed FDR would destroy the country but, as he would fulminate frequently, "don't those fools [Republicans] realize I'm trying to save capitalism?"
Republicans are too greedy; capitalism left to its own devices without check commits suicide.

Two points determine a line. In the Great Depression, farmers in California would hire armed men to guard the rivers to keep the starving Oakies from fishing the fruit these farmers had thrown into the river (they couldn't sell it, but they weren't going to let hungry people get it). This is related in the Grapes of Wrath.

A recent article in the NY Times described how dentists had used their political clout to prevent the opening of new dental schools--as a consequence, 100 million out of 300 million Americans can't afford (or get) dental care--try finding a dentist to accept medicaid (or medical here), for example. In addition, dentists take to court anyone who tries to fill cavities without being a licensed dentist.

Gould, I wish you were starving and fruit was being thrown in the river in front of you or that you had a toothache and couldn't afford a dentist.
Maybe you would understand that some people just don't have the money to afford life's necessities and that the rich had better be a little more understanding of this or else they are going to end up in a GULAG or under a guillotine.

publius,

I can't but help notice your points in reply to me:

1. Did not address any of the specifics I had brought up.

And

2. Were using examples of the past, some 70 odd years ago, The Great Depression, of which I don't think we are headed and if you think we are I didn't pick up on that thought.

(I sorry, I didn't get your "Two points determine a line" inferance).

As an aside, I myself like and admire FDR and HST. However, I don't think today's Democratic Party reflects their way of government or doing business in general anymore. It has shifted to the far left of mere common sense quite often, more often than not as of late, in my humble opinion of course.

(Example: The left "allows" if not invites illegal aliens yet wants to tax legal residents more to "cover" illegal alien college expenses, emergency room expenses, unplanned for increased infrastructure costs, including 17-20% of prison immates are illegally here, etc., that as per your blog our own LEGAL citizens don't have enough coverage. Where is the logic in allowing/perpetuating breaking the law and encouraging an increasing drain on both infrastructure and state benefits in this fashion? (I don't blame the folks crossing the border as much as I blame our politicians, republicans AND democrats for allowing, perpetuating and of late NOT fixing it when the public is overwhelmingly demanding it, regardless of which side of the issue you fall on. But the left appears very much so in encouraging lawbreaking via actually the creation of other laws! (Drivers licenses, college aid, etc. Rich or poor but a taxpayer regardless, I don't see the logic here).

Would you want a dentist or a doctor to work on you without being licensed? I am with you on fighting those who artificially keep things expensive, that is a good fight. Medicaid should be accepted more often than what you allude it is.

Refer to my earlier blog please. Do you think a guy like Fabian Nunez for example is really looking out for you when you see his excessive lifestyle? A lifestyle paid via CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS from fatcat special interests who obviously want/desire specific legislation outcomes?

Why did he ask every democratic legislator to put $50,000 towards Proposition 93, the "Term Limits Reform"? ($50K times all the democratic legislators is some real $$. Wonder why he didn't ask any republicans to chip in?) If it is real reform, why will it's passing enable current politicians such as himself to stay around LONGER than EXISTING voter approved term limits? (Today's Sacramento Bee covers this in more detail).

Would he be "excused from the guillotine" even though he eats, drinks and lives better than you and I right now? An "elitist" himself perhaps? Leadership has a set an example aspect to it. Gore has a "global warming" similar challenge in flying in private jets, owning 3 houses, etc.; He needs to dump his excessive lifestyle in defense of his own LIFE I guess before I can accept him telling me/others who have less, to cut back our alleged excesses. See my point?

Publius, I appreciate your dialog.

The Scams is almost so clear and at best more possible having a republican governor who only sees in terms of profit margins and balance sheets for the Corporate California without any or at best minimal regards for the Californians at Large which makes the corporation exist; forgetting that it is the "working Californians that make Corporate California succeed.

It's time to put the magnifying glasses on the GOP Governor and his CORPORATE BACKERS to get a CLEAR picture as to what is actually taking place at Capitol in Sacramento.

Nurses, Doctors, Lawyers, Injured workers, tech industry workers, police officers, firemen, security guards, agricultural workers, WORKERS PERIOD must start used its VETO POWER backfire at those our CAPITOL's CEO office.

"Can anyone honestly say Democrates wouldn't try the same if the rolls were reversed, and California was predominantly Republican for generations?"

It was for many years, and they never did. That proves that Democrats play a lot fairer than Republicans. They don't try to change the rules when they can't win. It's something about reason and logic.

I've also never heard of the Dems. campaigning on wedge issues. That's the Republican's bread and butter-- hate and divisiveness, and appealing to people's worst instincts and ignorances.

Jay Gould opines:

Would you want a dentist or a doctor to work on you without being licensed? I am with you on fighting those who artificially keep things expensive, that is a good fight. Medicaid should be accepted more often than what you allude it is.

Of course not, _but_, I would rather have a technician who had experience fill a cavity rather than not have it filled. This was an example given in the NY Times article--the ADA was suing Alaska for allowing technicians to do just that among the Inuit. There were no dentists there--the ADA's position was the Inuit should just suffer rather than cut into the ADA's monopoly, even though there were no dentists in the Artic. Consider what Milton Friedman said--regulation is worse, certification is better, nothing is best. The strongest unions in the country are the AMA, ADA and ABA, because they have the power of the state coercing their monopolies.

As far as your rant against legislative leaders, whether term limits are extended or not, it will not change objective reality--the new leaders will tend to make the same decisions as the old ones. Leaving them in office a while longer will make their decisions better.

Jim Carlile: The fact that Democrates didn't try the same thing in the past is not an indication of anything. It might simply have not been suggested.

You also say, "I've also never heard of the Dems. campaigning on wedge issues. That's the Republican's bread and butter-- hate and divisiveness, and appealing to people's worst instincts and ignorances."

You must be kidding, right? Not worth my time here to point out every instance of what you're saying is the complete opposite. You live in a vacuum?

Democrates have played "the class envy" card, the "race" card, "for the children" card as long as I can remember. And that's just off the top of my head.

Even as a Conservative, I doubt I will vote for this measure. Far easier for my to register my vote, out of state in my 2nd residence.

Besides, CA has become a great warning to other states of what not to become. If you travel, you'll encounter that sentiment everyhere else.

publius,

We will not agree that the longevity of a politician in office is better for their performance in the 21st century America. I re-refer you to my Fabian Nunez illustration above. Obviously NOT a man of the people there doing good for himself is the majority of his sucess in SAC. If he were a LEADER he would lead by example, and I guess he sorta is isn't he...

I doubt the ADA said what you say they did. But I'm sure you interpreted it that way. If your source is the NY Times for this info, could that perhaps be part of the problem?

(Mr. Russo and I are having a great chat on bias in the media, specifically on polls as of late, but that is for another time and not here).

Regardless, there are so many possible solutions to the Inuit situation that you describe. In my overall ignorance of the situation, knowing ONLY what you say here how about:

-If the Inuit are their own recognized Native American Nation, they should have more latitude on what they want to do...

-More realistically, who are the existing "technicians"? I'll betcha dollars to dougnuts there is a scholarship or two just waiting for them along with a already established government assistance proigram to address this issue. The ADA itself may help out with rotating dentists, hygenists all on the up & up and with tax breaks as a charity/non-profit effort to boot. Dental Interns, under say ADA oversight, could also be put into the mix. Going to Alaska would be an adventure for young, aspiring folks in the dental field.

Did anyone even ask the question? Did anyone pose a solution? Did the Inuit petition their leadership or appropriate congressional committee?

What do the Inuit want?

(Again, sorry. You didn't give me much to go on).

Now do me a favor: Please re-read my above, specifically the illegal alien aspect. I look forward to your thoughts in reply.

Jay Gould has some excellent suggestions.

publius: I would agree that there is need of more dental schools (only 5 in CA). The ADA has every reason that people are recieving Dental care from licensed profesionals.

However, if the ADA is preventing the establishment of new schools, that certainly is a problem, especially with the population growing.

As one who is intimately familiar with Dentistry (father and grandfather were both UCSF graduates), I can inform the readers here that Dentistry is somewhat different than general medicine. Lumping them together is not wise.

The overhead in a dental practice hovers around 70% (substantially higher than a general doctor). Obtaining the eductation, and a practice might run a person between 300-500K, taking the average dentist over 10 years of payments before they break even.

Many simply cannot afford to 'lose time' working on medicare patients. Nor do medicare payments generally cover the materials necessary to perform a procedure, let alone other expenses. My father would only help medicare patients on weekends, and even then, irregularly.

As a short term solution, the Inuit could certainly find themselves at the University of Alaska. Dental students are always looking to find patients to practice on (supervised). It is often cheaper, better work, and free depending on school.

I do not pretend to have all the solutions, I am neither too young, or old enough yet.

Post a comment

Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.