« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

My California Ballot, October 16, 2010

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  October 16th, 2010 at 06:59 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is a relatively easy ballot to fill out this time. California Democrats are just that bad, down the line.

Governor: Meg Whitman. Easy call. No matter what you think of her, Jerry Brown was a disaster of a governor, and he has the nerve to ask to go back. That’s unacceptable.

Lieutenant Governor: Abel Maldonaldo. This guy probably doesn’t have any fans among conservatives, but seriously: Gavin Newsom is a whack job. Again, easy call.

Secretary of State: Damon Dunn. No problem voting for this guy who ran that other whack job Orly Taitz back to the fringe where she belongs.

Controller: Tony Strickland. Solid pick.

Treasurer: Mimi Walters. Bill Lockyer is so pathetic. Just go home. You’ve been in Sacramento too long.

Attorney General: Steve Cooley. The choice is LA or SF, and we all know what SF is every single time we look at Nancy Pelosi. We can’t afford a Nancy Pelosi Democrat that we get in Kamala Harris.

Insurance Commissioner: Mike Villines. This could become an especially important job as the Obamacare era comes to the state and insurance battles continues. We need a Republican.

State Board of Equalization, District 3: Michelle Steel. Again, do we really need more Tax and Spend Democrat up there?

US Senate: Carly Fiorina. A pro-life Republican for the first time in the Roe era. We can do it.

US Representative, District 45: Mary Bono Mack. Hey, she voted against Obamacare, and we know Steve Pougnet will alternate between padding his wallet and padding the treasury.

State Assembly: Brian Nestande. We need all the sanity we can get up there.

Judges: I really don’t know these judges, but I know that our last two governors have been terrible, with even the Girly Man appointing extremist left-wing judges, and so by default I’m rejecting every judge up there.

State Superintendent of Instruction: I’m not up on this race and so I’ll just do the opposite of the LA Times and vote Tom Torlakson. I don’t know if he’s any good and frankly I don’t think this should be an elective position. The Governor should control this.

Moreno Valley Unified School District Board: I got a flyer from the local union, and I’m voting the opposite: Anyone but Cleveland Johnson, Oscar Valdepena, and Jesus Holguin.

And now onto the propositions:

Proposition 19: Cannabis legalization. If this passes I admit I will enjoy watching California fight for federalism, but I can’t support it. No.

Proposition 20: Congressional redistricting goes to the Arnie/Democrat-created Commission and out of direct oversight from the voters. The goal is to gerrymand for the center left and away from conservatives. No.

Proposition 21: A car tax. No.

Proposition 22: Enforces an earmark specifically for transportation, redevelopment, and local government. Part of California’s budget crisis stems from idiotic restrictions like these draining power from the legislature. It tries to mandate higher spending in essence. No.

Proposition 23: Suspends AB32, the California Cap and Tax, until unemployment is sustained at or below 5.5% for a year. I’ll take what I can get. Yes.

Proposition 24: Tax hike on businesses. No.

Proposition 25: Changes requirement to pass a budget (and raise taxes) from 2/3 majority to simple majority, thus permanently removing the one bit of leverage conservatives have. No.

Proposition 26: Implements a 2/3 vote requirement for certain new local taxes. Yes.

Proposition 27: Eliminates the Arnie/Democrat-created redistricting Commission. Ensures districting stays with elected officials. Believe it or not but the gerrymander helps conservatives have a voice in the CRP and then cause trouble in Sacramento come budget time. Yes.

Riverside County Proposition K: Bond issue for trains. They say it’s also for freeways but you know that these people just love big train boondoggles. No.

Riverside County Proposition L: Lock in massive, unaffordable benefits to unions. Union boondoggle with scare tactics behind it. This isn’t driven by “public safety” but rather by union fatcats. No.

Riverside County Proposition M: Allow adjustment of the aforementioned union benefits via popular vote with no hidden pro-union restrictions. Yes.

Moreno Valley Proposition N: Advisory vote on having an elected Mayor. Yes, even though it’s only symbolic. The city is poorly run and I’d love for there to be a counterweight to the clearly ineffective city manager system.

Moreno Valley Proposition O: Advisory vote on having an election to change city law to have an elected Mayor. Huh? Well, for the above reason, Yes.

Moreno Valley Proposition P: Hotel tax hike. We just had two freaking hotels built on my side of town, and now we want to tax them? No.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • IJB

    I know Torlakson – he’s a No. Cal. Bay Area liberal. He’s horrible.

    Trust me on this: There is NO good choice for SIoPI – just leave it blank. That’s what I’m going to do.

    On the judges thing, if you’re talking about State Supreme Court Justices, I’ll look into it more, but at first glance all three of them are ‘bad guys’, so your instinct to vote No was correct.

    Oh, and I’m voting Yes on Prop. 25 – the people of this state keep electing Dems? Fine – let Dems be solely responsible for state budgeting. We’ll see how the voters of this state come to like that, when they don’t have even squishy Republicans saving their bacon anymore! Reap what you sow, baby!!

    (More later…)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I mean hey, maybe you can afford it. I can’t.

  • elliesue

    Write in – Diane Lenning – The only eligible Republican vs. 2 liberal Democrats. Endorsed by California Federation of Republican Women

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Wish I’d known that. Too late for me though.

  • IJB
  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    He’s the union guy down the line…status quo to the hilt.

    Aceves was the dark horse candidate who surprised everyone in the primary. Retired administrator. The best chance we’ve had in a long time to getting someone who’s open to something different.

    No guarantees he won’t get rolled, but the alternative is clearly more of the same

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    What I do know is that Aceves was the dark horse, and was far better than the LA politician whom he beat (Gloria Romero). And Torlakson is sold out to the unions.

    I don’t know about his being a liberal Democrats (though the two are getting synonymous these days), but I do know that of the top three, his primary platform was certainly the most open to new ideas, and unlike Torlakson and Romero, he’s not a politician.

    I’d be most happy if we had a viable Republican running for this “non-partisan” position. But a write-in campaign on a down-ticket race is futile.

  • thinktank

    Neil, I am afraid you got the positions inversed. The Democratic Party and many progressive groups have the same position as you in respect for 20 and 27.

    They want the state legislature to make the remap for both state legislature and congress, and get rid of the commission so they can make their Phil Burton tribute remaps.

    Groups as diverse as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Organization and the NAACP are supporting Yes on 20, NO on 27.

    Do you expect to have a remap that will be better than the 2001 reapportionment?

    And maybe if we had more Republicans elected in California we could kill bad bills in committees even if we do not have the majorities in Sacramento. Like AB 32 type pieces of legislation.

    Best,
    Matt

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Do you think electing more Abel Maldonaldo-types will kill bills? Or Arnold Schwarzeneggers?

    Moving away from the 2001-style map to dilute the CRP even further will lead to a real disaster.

    Or do you have illusions of electing majorities?

  • scarlos

    The fact that California is unlikely to elect a Conservative majority is (one of the) reasons why prop 20 is so important. Democrats are going to be the ones drawing the maps in the state legislature, and considering some online lefties have created maps that trim California’s Republican delegation from 19 to 6 seats, that’s not a future i’m looking forward to.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You have to demonstrate that your proposal is superior.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I need a cite on the online lefty plan you talk about, and what the consequences would be in terms of competitiveness.

    Gerrymandering is a tradeoff between safety and numbers.

    What makes you think the Dems are going to turn their safe seats into risky ones to please some online idiots?

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    1) They have a veneer of non-partisanship while being stealthily stacked against conservatives.

    2) Following up, if we’re going to get screwed, let’s at least be able to hold accountable who did it.

    Once an independent commission dissolves, you’ll never find the father and even if you did, he’s got no assets that you can attach.

    Whereas with the legislature, you know who the dad is and where he is, which at least gives you a chance of someday getting him to pay for the deed.

  • scarlos

    http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5861/redistricting-california-2010-v20-let-only-6-republicans-be-safe

  • scarlos

    You’re underestimating how easily they can draw a dozen Republicans out of their seats.

  • scarlos

    I don’t see the logic in putting redistricting in the hands of the now perpetually-safe California Democratic Assembly Majority is going to be somehow better than in the hands of the at least nominally independent commission. At worst, the commission screws us over, just like the Democrats would have done to begin with.

    Also, do you think that the Democrats who have drawn themselves perfectly safe districts are going to be somehow accountable to us in the first place? I find it Ironic that you think you can hold state legislators accountable for their actions by letting them draw the lines for their own districts. That seems a bit counter-productive to be honest

  • IJB

    You need to show how lines getting drawn by some so-called “non-partisan” commission WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE VOTERS is somehow going to magically produce a better map than the CA Legislature.

    At least if the legislature draws the lines there’s a good chance that they’ll put “incumbent protection” ahead of purely partisan interests and maintain more GOP seats.

    I can nearly guarantee you – if this so-called unaccountable “non-partisan” (really: stacked with AFSCME and ethnic grievance types) draws the lines, they are *far more likely* to draw every GOP district out of existence and produce a map like that Swing State Project map above (or worse).

    So, people like *you* have to prove to the rest of us that your “new” system will be better than what we already have. So far, I’ve seen nothing but smoke from the pro-Prop. 20 people on that score…

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The situation as it is now is the default.

    It is those promoting hope and change that must make the case for their “reform.”

  • scarlos

    In case you don’t know, the California state legislature is solidly Democratic, to the point where they are close to a seat shy of a 2/3rds majority in each house. If Brown wins the governorship (which he looks like he will, unfortunately), the Democrats will have complete and total control of the congressional redistricting process. There is absolutely no reason they would play nice and draw anything less than a nakedly partisan map like they did in Maryland in 2002, and I don’t see why you think they wouldn’t.

    Now, if you take independent commissions (which have a pretty good non-partisan track record in other states like Iowa and Arizona), there’s at least a CHANCE that they will draw fair lines that doesn’t deliberately skew the results in favor of the Democratic party. And if they did, there is no reason to think that it would any worse off than the State Democrats map.

    In other words, I’ll take the risk that the Commission will draw fair lines rather than taking the guarantee that the Legislature will not

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    1) California Supreme Court
    2) Referendum

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • scarlos

    Also, AFCSME donated 1.25 Million to the Yes on 27 campaign, along with 100,000 from George Soros. That’s not something you would do if you’re confident you could fix the commission.

    On top of that 18 California Congressional Democrats are supporting it financially.

    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_27,_Elimination_of_Citizen_Redistricting_Commission_%282010%29

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    I had lurking in my mind that this referendum was going to do away with what you call the “veto referendum”.

    And a court challenge presumably will be an seriously uphill battle because it’s a “non-partisan” group. Or does the measure also limit or abolish court review too?

    Sound like the makings of an electoral coup d’etat; – gerrymandering without recourse.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    I got confused over what you were saying, and who is supporting and who is opposing passage of 27, so strike my previous comment.

    I’m going to have to look at this issue more closely. Especially when I start following the money. I need to step back for a bit before taking a reflex position.

  • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

    Yeah, as civil said, he’s the CTA guy (that’s hoe he has money to run commercials). Check out Diane Lenning.

  • scarlos

    Prop 27 gets rid of the commission, Prop 20 gives it Congressional redistricting power as well as state redistricting power.

    In other words, AFCSME and Soros are for the former, and against the latter.

  • IJB

    Those guys would probably prefer to deal with sitting legislators with whom they have preexisting relationships.

    But that has no bearing on whether they’ve already stacked the deck on the commission in their favor.

    Also, one other thing – from what I can see, you’re dead wrong: Prop. 27 actually *allows* for a Veto Referendum of redistricting, something we don’t currently have, according to both Ballotpedia (2nd paragraph) and this article (4th paragraph from the end).