California PoliticsGregD -- Friday, November 12, 2004 -- 05:00:24 PM
It's the fifth largest economy in the world, the largest state economy in the US, representing 13% of the GDP, and a global hub of tomorrow's technologies and industries. Its central valley is one of the world's most fertile growing regions, producing much of the nation's fruit, vegetables, and nuts. It contains three of the top ten most populous regions of the United States. It's the Golden State. The Land of Milk and Honey. It's California.This thread is tagged: politics, california
(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
How depressing. Combined with the direction my former town is taking and the burglary of my parents' home, it's enough to make me want to buy and learn to use a gun for property protection.
The worst, though, is the dangerousness of the driving in the central valley. My parents were nearly killed two weeks ago (my father just managed to avoid being hit) when a car blew through a stop sign and crossed the major road that they were traveling on, in the dark, at at least 60 miles per hour. Head-on and T-crossing collisions are appallingly common on valley roads. No one has any knowledge of the rules of right-of-way, and drunk driving is par for the course any evening after five or six.
A long but excellent piece showing how my "pet issue" -- as Sheridan described it in another thread -- has completely transformed the politics of my state.
Even today we still have idiots in the Republican Party who claim we need to appeal to Hispanics, as if small state conservatives have any common grounds in which to lure them over.
I can't stand Heather Macdonald. Overwrought and full of herself.
Even though I'm worried about California's demographics, I hate Macdonald so much that I'm less worried now that she's hyperventilating about it. Not much. Just a little. But she's that utterly useless.
And before you go blaming California residents again, remember that the state has tried in multiple ways to stop this from happening. If there were a ballot to ban illegal aliens from public schools, it would pass.
Why dislike Macdonald? That seems irrational to me; she's written many articles on underreported issues without most of the emotional bloviating that so often characterizes female journalism.
Clearly you haven't read her on the subject of atheism.
And once you do, it really starts to look as if she's just faking it to be successful, which is what I've believed about her ever since. I think she just writes what will get Republicans going.
I no longer believe that she's genuine on anything--except her expectation that, having carried so much water for conservatives on immigration, she should warrant extra consideration for being an atheist.
ETA: When looking for an article that echoes my contempt, I found this, which accurately captures not only my disdain for her hackneyed objections to religion, but also my belief that anyone who thinks like this can't be taken seriously on any subject.
...and the logic behind PM's article is why, for instance, the CA GOP doesn't consider old people as a potential voting block, what with their built in preference for government programs like SS, Medicaid, and Medicare. That's why the CA GOP tries to punch old people in the face every chance they get - they know that old people are a natural constituency for big government, so they are of course the enemy, to be antagonized and insulted at every opportunity.
The real problem that the CA GOP has is that it's apparently made up of idiots too stupid to count to thirteen without taking off their shoes.
Wouldn't it be sweet if people here actually read the article and took critical note of the important information and arguments contained therein instead of merely riding their favorite hobby-horses to death?
That makes great sense for conservatives in the state. I don't know why I didn't think of that. We should now privilege Hispanic voters with the same set of government preferences at the state level that we have already granted old people at the federal level. It's not like this state doesn't have money to burn, and it's not as if we are struggling with the money we give to older people at the federal level.
No, idiot. The problem is that you and the article are focused on why any particular group isn't a perfect republican constituency. If you hadn't noticed, republicans are in the *minority* in California. If you don't at least pick up some significant number of Hispanics, how can you hope to be anything *but* a permanent minority? Where do you plan on finding the votes? Or are you going to fall back on your fantasy of federal reconstruction somehow magically introducing a new master-race of republicans who will give you the votes?
I swear to God you are biggest dumbass I've ever encountered.
Oh no, Amaxen, I haven't noticed that. Please tell me more.
You don't. Conservatism in California is over. It will never come back in my lifetime. Yes, a Republican or two will sneak into office, just as Republicans occasionally sneak into state office in places like Massachusetts or Hawaii. But those Republicans are not solid conservatives. They have names like Scott Brown and Linda Lingle. (In California, they are known as Arnold Schwarzenegger.) They run like Mitt Romney ran in the 90s, when he said he was a moderate and not a supporter of Reagan.
If the GOP in this state wants to pick up Hispanic voters, it must adopt a wide range of Democratic policies. And then it has to convince Hispanic voters that they can be trusted to run welfare programs for the benefit of Hispanics. After all, why should Hispanics switch parties when the Democrats already give them what the Republicans only promise to give them?
And if Republicans have to adopt the opposing party's platform on welfare programs to become a majority party in this state, then why bother becoming a majority? Who needs it? I don't. Especially if the local GOP heresy on welfare affects the party's stance on national issues, which of course it will.
This is what makes your promotion of local GOP heresy in the state so invidious, for it will inevitably and adversely affect national politics.
You don't. There are no votes to get. Never have been; never will be. You simply don't know this because you haven't look at the numbers, which leads you into egregious errors like claiming that Arnold won in 2003 because of Hispanic male voters.
No, even with federal help, California will be at best a purple state with strong leanings to the blue side of the political ledger. But certainly if the feds push California in helpful ways, they can create more problems for the Democrats in this state.
so they are of course the enemy, to be antagonized and insulted at every opportunity.
Did you read the part where the Hispanic pastor said that most Hispanics had never heard of or did not remember Prop 187 and that in his opinion they all voted Democratic because they feared that Republicans would cut off the flow of public money? Did you read that part? If you did read it, what did you think of the pastor's notion that most Hispanics want more and better government support and that this is their overriding political concern? Did you think he was wrong? If so, could you please cite some evidence that there exists a large group of Hispanic voters who prefer limited government and less government support waiting to be tapped?
By ignoring this basic issue, you ensure that your argument that California Republicans should court the Hispanic vote is a complete farce.
I think Amaxen showed in his #2541 that he doesn't really believe small government ideology should concern Republicans anymore. If we can't cut back on welfare to old people, what right do we have to cut back on welfare to Hispanics?
Sigh. Jen - for starters, do you believe that Hispanics are monolithic and that none of them own their own businesses? Furthermore, along the Hispanics being monolithic angle, do you think that Hispanics will vote for one party or the other but would never split their vote?
PM: > If we can't cut back on welfare to old people, what right do we have to cut back on welfare to Hispanics?
You don't have anything to say on policy. If you can't win elections there's absolutely no use in fantasizing about doing anything policy related. So you should confine yourself to whining about the old days.
Not enough of them own businesses that are sufficiently profitable to override the value of government support to their not nearly as motivated family.
"If the upward mobility of the impending Hispanic majority doesn’t improve, the state’s economic future is in peril."
Gee, I dunno, you could try something really radical, like doing some work among Hispanics to convince them that the GOP stands for them becoming owners of family businesses while the Dems stand for them becoming welfare peons. It would certainly have a better chance of giving the GOP a future in CA than PM's whine-about-the-old-days-and-play-piano-with-Edith strategy, but hey, whatever.