Next CA govenor

[mrbose]

Here is a little help ;D
www.politics1.com/ca.htm

[jgaffney]

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would want to be the chief executive of this disfunctional state. We have a Legislature that refuses to budge for anyone, even one of their own, and we have an electorate that believes they can vote themselves anything they want by just putting an initiative on the ballot.

I was approached outside Oliver's by a signature gatherer. His come-on line was, "Are you in favor of better education?" I wasn't in a hurry, so I stopped to take a look at what he was offering. His ballot initiative would increase funding for K-12 and higher education. I asked him if he knew how much of the State budget those two things got now. When he said, "Not enough," I told him that the two items combined were nearly half of the total budget. When he said that there still needed to be more, and started rattling off statistics about dollars per pupil, I cut him short and asked him, "What should we cut in order to increase funding for education?" He then went off on a ramble about taxing the rich, cutting tax breaks for the greedy corporatists and the rest of the Marxist socialist rant that passes for educated thought among the progressives in Sonoma County. When I'd had enough, I asked him, "How much are you being paid per signature?" He then left me and approached someone else that was just coming out of the market.

[heckheckle]

"JERRY bROWN FOR GOVERNOR" ;D... Oops! I didn't know about Jerry. He won't make "It". His endorsement of qweer marriages
takes him out of the running.

[pie]

Mar 11, 2010 0:40:06 GMT -5 heckheckle said:

"AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT"

"JERRY bROWN FOR GOVERNOR"

HECKHECKEL FOR DELETION!

[The Big Dog]

There are, really, only two potential candidates.... Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman.

I discount Steve Poizner completely because he is, position wise, largely an empty folder. Very little is known about where he really stands on things and, even though he holds statewide office, has very little real statewide name recognition. While Poizner is fabulously wealthy, his checkbook is nowhere near the size of Meg Whitman's.

All that said, my fifteen cents of analysis....

** Jerry Brown is exceptionally far left on a number of issues. He has drunk deeply of the global warming Kool Aid and seems perfectly content to drive the state into the economic abyss so long as the road is painted green to get there.

** Jerry Brown is, in most respects, utterly feckless when it comes to taxation. In his first term as governor he never met a tax increase he didn't like and rode a massive surplus but refused to cut taxes. To his credit he did hold the line, in some ways, on spending, but still the taxes kept going up and up and up. In 1978 the voters had enough and passed Prop 13. Amazingly, even though he was up for re-election that year and was heavily soiled as a big tax liberal, he re-invented himself on the fly as a supporter of Prop 13 and won re-election handily.

** Jerry Brown is, to a point, pro-business, but that whole green thing kind of puts that in the back seat with the groceries.

** Jerry Brown has, surprisingly, a strong libertarian streak on a strong number of social issues. There are quite a few gun rights gurus who are actively supporting him based on his term as Attorney General and some of what he has done relative to reining in an out of control Bureau of Firearms and briefing to the SCOTUS in support of incorporating Amendment Two against the states. Those same gun rights gurus are scared shitless, and rightly so, by Meg Whitman.

** Brown's record as governor is, to put it charitably, checkered. His terms as mayor of Oakland are downright schizophrenic in places, and it must be remembered that at his core he is in most respects a dyed in the wool, big government progressive.

Meg Whitman, on the other hand....

** Meg Whitman talks a good fight when it comes to cutting state spending and rolling back some of our confiscatory taxes. Astute readers will recall some assclown named Schwarzenegger did pretty much the same thing as a candidate and found out, once he got into office, who was really in charge at the State Capitol. Meg Whitman will as well as no amount of CEO bluster is going to solve it.

** Meg Whitman has drunk deeply of the green Kool Aid. She is on board with it from the marketing perspective as a business opportunity. She isn't going to care if the economy drives into the abyss on a green paved road because there will be business interests that will be getting fat from it.

** Meg Whitman is, from all appearances, at least as socially liberal as Schwarzenegger... probably more so.

** Meg Whitman is, from most appearances, not a big believer in any number of civil rights. As noted above, she scares politically knowledgeable gun owners shitless.

In short... there are pluses and minuses to both of them. And the minuses on each far and again outweigh what pluses they have.

[pie]

Mar 11, 2010 15:09:01 GMT -5 The Big Dog said:

There are, really, only two potential candidates.... Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman.

I discount Steve Poizner completely because he is, position wise, largely an empty folder. Very little is known about where he really stands on things and, even though he holds statewide office, has very little real statewide name recognition. While Poizner is fabulously wealthy, his checkbook is nowhere near the size of Meg Whitman's.

All that said, my fifteen cents of analysis....

** Jerry Brown is exceptionally far left on a number of issues. He has drunk deeply of the global warming Kool Aid and seems perfectly content to drive the state into the economic abyss so long as the road is painted green to get there.

** Jerry Brown is, in most respects, utterly feckless when it comes to taxation. In his first term as governor he never met a tax increase he didn't like and rode a massive surplus but refused to cut taxes. To his credit he did hold the line, in some ways, on spending, but still the taxes kept going up and up and up. In 1978 the voters had enough and passed Prop 13. Amazingly, even though he was up for re-election that year and was heavily soiled as a big tax liberal, he re-invented himself on the fly as a supporter of Prop 13 and won re-election handily.

** Jerry Brown is, to a point, pro-business, but that whole green thing kind of puts that in the back seat with the groceries.

** Jerry Brown has, surprisingly, a strong libertarian streak on a strong number of social issues. There are quite a few gun rights gurus who are actively supporting him based on his term as Attorney General and some of what he has done relative to reining in an out of control Bureau of Firearms and briefing to the SCOTUS in support of incorporating Amendment Two against the states. Those same gun rights gurus are scared shitless, and rightly so, by Meg Whitman.

** Brown's record as governor is, to put it charitably, checkered. His terms as mayor of Oakland are downright schizophrenic in places, and it must be remembered that at his core he is in most respects a dyed in the wool, big government progressive.

Meg Whitman, on the other hand....

** Meg Whitman talks a good fight when it comes to cutting state spending and rolling back some of our confiscatory taxes. Astute readers will recall some assclown named Schwarzenegger did pretty much the same thing as a candidate and found out, once he got into office, who was really in charge at the State Capitol. Meg Whitman will as well as no amount of CEO bluster is going to solve it.

** Meg Whitman has drunk deeply of the green Kool Aid. She is on board with it from the marketing perspective as a business opportunity. She isn't going to care if the economy drives into the abyss on a green paved road because there will be business interests that will be getting fat from it.

** Meg Whitman is, from all appearances, at least as socially liberal as Schwarzenegger... probably more so.

** Meg Whitman is, from most appearances, not a big believer in any number of civil rights. As noted above, she scares politically knowledgeable gun owners shitless.

In short... there are pluses and minuses to both of them. And the minuses on each far and again outweigh what pluses they have.

That is nothing more nor less than a long drawn out quandary that answers nothing.
I think I'm gonna move.

[danceswithdogs]

Californians let the fruits and nuts multiply and take over without fighting back when you could. Now, it's going to be a choice between the lesser evils, which never ends well. There are too many "environmentalists" (aka: nuts) and too many Liberal/Progressives (mostly fruits) and they all want to tell YOU how to live. Time to either take back your state or move out of it. Letting the fruits and nuts keep controlling things will keep taking you down that "yellow brick road" and it ain't gonna lead you to OZ.

[The Big Dog]

Mar 11, 2010 23:07:27 GMT -5 @pie said:

That is nothing more nor less than a long drawn out quandary that answers nothing.

Well I thought the topic required a bit more fleshing out than simply saying... "it's a huge sheeeit sandwich, and we're all going to have to take a bite".

Both have their ups and downs. Meg Whitman has, IMO, far more downs than ups and it pains me greatly that she will almost certainly be the Republican candidate.

[pie]

Yeah, Big Dog, they all lie and turn coat to the prevailing whim.
Sure sucks!
I was mostly pulling your leg. ;D
There are no good answers, my friend.

[JustMyOpinion]

Ahnold leaving Cauleefornia?! Darn!

[heckheckle]

Well, now we have to contend with the real Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes. Newsom wants the Lt. Gov. job? What is needed is a very high, very strong fence around SF. No one allowed out.

[pie]

...Then another earthquake and fire like 1906.
But this time, turn off the damned water!