California Primary 2010

It's that time again here in California. Primary season is upon us for the midterm elections and for our state governor's race as well as a few propositions. The climate both in the state and nationwide is going to make for some interesting results as I'm sure a few shocked and surprised liberals here are about to find out. Hot button issues of the day are pretty much the state's crippling debt and illegal immigration - which I don't see as separable. Just about all else is secondary since we simply can't sustain operating this way for much longer. Some say we're already past that point because of corrupt unions and incumbent office holders. I expect there's going to be a lot of political newbies floating around come November.

Television ads are coming hard and fast and both sides of the Republican governor's primary are slinging mud at each other like you wouldn't believe, calling each other liberals and both spitting out reams of citations to support their claims. Ironically in many cases it's the same sources both sides are using against each other. It looks very much like we're about to have a "lesser of two evils" result from our two front runners - Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman. Both of them are businesspeople. Poizner ran several successful software companies over the years and currently serves as the Insurance Commissioner for the state. Whitman was CEO of eBay up until November of 2007 and currently provides consulting support to various companies. She was also floated as a possibility for McCain's Secretary of the Treasury. Looking deeply into either one of these candidates doesn't lead to much of any real interest until you hit the illegal immigration issue. Poizner is looking to clamp down and start cutting away some of the benefits they get and supports the new Arizona law, while Whitman seems to be an amnesty advocate and has publicly stated she is against the Arizona law. That in mind, given there's nothing else really distinguishing, my vote goes to Steve Poizner. I'm sick of these illegals and the damage they're doing to our state and country and sure as hell won't vote for someone planning to give them amnesty!

There's a bunch of unknowns running for other various state offices, so I won't bore anyone with the lotto style voting I did on those. Suffice it to say I tended toward voting for businesspeople where possible and for DA's in the judicial offices that are up for vote. Figured on hedging the bet with people who aren't inclined to hose business owners or be bleeding hearts on the bench.

The choices for who gets to run up against Barbara Boxer in November aren't much better. Four unknowns and then Carly Fiorina, who was the CEO at HP from 1999-2005. She seems to have the best shot at unseating Boxer, so might as well go with her.

Our local House race is pretty much a no-brainer. Gary G. Miller all the way. One of the few incumbents I'm willing to send back. He's demonstrated solid conservative principles and is dead set against any form of amnesty and has sponsored several bills in the past to strengthen border enforcement.

Now we arrive at the propositions, which are generally the more interesting things that go on around here. So let's get right to that:

Proposition 13 - Limits on Property Tax Assessment. Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Buildings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Wow, that's a mouth full, right? Rather fitting in a way that this prop 13 is dealing with property taxation just like it's big brother from years past. The basic jist is that if your building needs to be retrofitted to comply with earthquake codes, it won't cause the property tax value to be reassessed. Right now this is a common trick which exploits a loophole in the existing Prop 13 protections. Prop 13 (2010) aims to close that loophole. Considering the state bleeds us to death already, this is a solid YES for me.

Proposition 14 - Elections, Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections.

The title sounds good. Increases rights to vote in primaries. All well and good you might think. The problem is, this is an open primaries initiative. You know the type. The ones where Democrats can come over and vote for Republicans and Republicans can go vote for Democrats. Party primaries are supposed to be about who the PARTY wants to pick, not who the opposition wants to pick. I view this sort of thing as interference in a process that's working just fine, thanks. I don't want the libs to sabotage who I think is our best pick, and I don't think we should be able to go and sabotage the candidates they feel are their best picks. Stay the hell out of each other's business. This gets a NO vote from me.

Proposition 15 - California Fair Elections Act.

This is another one of those wonderful sounding titles that is as misleading as they get. It boils down to a state version of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. The one where taxpayer money is now flowing to fund candidates and any candidate who elects to take that money is then barred from being able to raise additional funds elsewhere. The kind of thing that dishonorable people like Barack Obama ignored anyway. So why get stuck with all the hassles that come with it? The real reason is buried near the end of the synopsis - raises an additional $6 million for the state in the form of fees from lobbyists. Uh huh. Stinks of corruption. BIG FAT NO VOTE.

Proposition 16 - Imposes New Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

A lot of hype about this one, and there's been a wall of TV ads now for THREE DAMN MONTHS supporting this one. It's being painted as a way for folks to put a clamp on government spending by barring them from being able to put public money toward local electricity generation. If all you see are the TV ads, it might even sound like a good idea. Until you look closer into who's backing it. Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, and several other utility companies that currently enjoy fat contracts with the state and local entities. Reading through the details reveals it as a fraud to block cities and counties from being able to start their own DWP style projects (DWP = LA Dept of Water & Power for those who don't know). The DWP is largely grid independent and doesn't rely on these giant behemoths who are ripping us all off. LA residents enjoy utility bills far below the state average costs. So why shouldn't the rest of us have this opportunity? Big giant NO vote on 16.

Proposition 17 - Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.


God, who comes up with these titles anyway? The simple story here is pretty basic. If you have a good driving record and you are currently enjoying a discounted rate with your insurance carrier, you are allowed to carry that discount over to a new company should you decide to switch. This is something we actually once had here in California until Garamendi killed it back in 2005. So there's no reason we should be able to get it back again. Definite YES vote.

Ballot's in the mail already. Time to get psyched up for the November midterms. The march to retake our country from the reckless spending of the Marxists and liberals has begun. Do your part California, GO VOTE!
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« Who Lost Europe?
Back to Poland »

Posted on Jun 1, 2010 12:41 am by Samson in: | 12 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Not being a California resident, my vote wouldn't count for much on these, but for what it's worth, given your above presentation of the choices, I'm finding no points to disagree with you upon. Good luck.

       
I disagree with Conner ;)

       
In full, or just in that my vote shouldn't count for much since I'm not a California resident and we're talking about the California primaries? :tongue:

       
In full, or


What have you got? :biggrin:

       
Edited by The_Fury on Jun 3, 2010 1:55 am
So, you're just disagreeing purely for the sake of being disagreeable, rather than with anything in particular, then? :lol:

       
LOL, you got me. :devil:

but for what it's worth


Mostly i disagree with this :stare:

       
Well, Fury, you may not realize it but a lot of what California does in the form of legislation and initiatives is often mimicked in other states. We aren't called a leader in progressive reforms for nothing, sadly. So it is very much relevant to him and others in the US what we say and do right here in shitsvill USA. We are and have been the ass end of the country for 20+ years now.

       
Oh im just playing with Conner, which really had nothing to do with the topic you posted, some aspects of US politics i really don't get, like primaries and these proposition bills.

It seems to me to be a great waste of time, effort and money to have an election to decide who you would like to see as your preferred party candidate for one, especially when the others can run as a "insert party name" or as an independent anyway. This is especially so when you consider that most of the time the candidate is going to vote along party lines anyway, so it does not matter what the platform of the individual candidate really is, only what the parties platform will be.

I think the party should choose its candidates using some internal mechanism rather than turning every aspect of life into some spectacle that, at the end of the day, does not have much of a bearing on the direction that the government will eventually take, or for that matter the opinions of the individual candidates.

Holding a referendum, which is what these proposition bill look like, is something of a rarity in Australia, they cost a lot of money and most of the time, they fail anyway, so, we might see one every 5 to 10 years or so, i think i have in 20 years of voting, voted on 2 referendum, the last one being should Australia become a republic, which failed and so we kept the Queen as our head of state. And here you are being asked to vote on at least 4 of them all being, well, in my view, rather mundane and unimportant kinds of issues to have a referendum about.

       
Yes, but we're Americans. Worthless politics is what we're all about :)

I do have to admit though that the initiative process here in California is pretty pathetic because you can get damn near anything on the ballots with enough signatures. It has good things, like the original Proposition 13, and Proposition 187, but it also has dumb shit like Edison's power-grab (Prop 16). State ballot initiatives are probably more along the lines of provincial or local referendums for you guys - we have no such process at the Federal level, short of Constitutional amendments. The last time we did that was 1971 with the 26th Amendment that granted 18yr olds the right to vote. So our "referendums" are even more rare than yours.

Primaries are an internal mechanism for the parties here. It just so happens that the mechanism is also very public and in some cases is just as full of drama as the real election that follows.

       
Ah, so you were disagreeing that it was worth anything. Gotcha.. ;) :tongue:

Samson did a good job of explaining the referendums thing and the primaries thing too. Basically it's local voting by district for the stuff that'll impact that district that you're seeing all the time en masse, not true referendums at the national level. I've even seen elections where my county had several propositions on the ballot that weren't on the ballot at all for the next county over, or school district or town or.. but the nationwide ones are super rare and the statewide ones are usually only a couple here and there (though California's actually pretty good about getting everyone involved in every decision that way too.. gives the actual politicians less to do, I suspect.) :wink:

       
Well. Results are in folks. Interesting times.

Carly Fiorina will go on to challenge Barbara Boxer in November. This is good.

Meg Whitman will go on to challenge Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown for Governor. Disappointing since Whitman is on record as an amnesty supporter. Fools here in this state never learn. This is less than ideal, but it is what we're stuck with now.

Abel Maldonado challenges Gavin Newsom for Lt. Governor. Newsom if you'll recall is the dipshit who violated the state ban on gay marriages in San Francisco by presiding over several ceremonies, leading to the state supreme court legalizing them, and ultimately resulting in Proposition 8. He's a hard core gay rights activist, and is gay himself, and I'm fairly confident he won't survive the general election.

Proposition 13 is overwhelmingly victorious at 85%.

Proposition 14 wins by a margin of 55% to 45%. Some additional info here that wasn't released with the ballot packets, turns out this is a "top two" primary system. Not a traditional open primary. The repercussions of such a thing should be obvious as hell, because it doesn't matter which parties those top 2 people are from. Yes, we could wind up with a general election pitting one Dem against another. I'm not at all optimistic we'd ever see 2 Repubs up against each other here.

Proposition 15 goes down to defeat, 57% to 42%. So at least nobody is going to be allowed to sponge from the taxpayers to mess up our future primaries.

Proposition 16 narrowly defeated 52% to 47%. A late surge in newspaper coverage exposing the Edison power grab shifted things just enough to spare us the grief.

Proposition 17 also failed, 51% to 48%. I guess people like getting screwed when switching insurance carriers.

       
Well, at least it's not all bad news.

A top two primary system?? Man, talk about your alien concepts... :shaking head:

       
<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30