PDA

View Full Version : California going republican



Deogol
06-07-2006, 06:48 AM
California sends another republican to the house of representatives.

Democrats can't get their shit together enough to even send a rep from hippieland.

Yekhefah
06-07-2006, 01:34 PM
Ha ha, I voted as a Republican in the primary election yesterday. That's a noteworthy thing in Hollywood, apparently! I walked in and since I'm registered independent, they asked if I'd like to vote in a party primary. "Yes," I said, "Republican." Everyone in the room stopped what they were doing and looked over at me. I guess a little blonde twentysomething in Hollywood doesn't fit the Republican profile, and I'm not a Republican (they are much too left-wing for me), but I wanted to give Schwarzenegger another shot, so. There was a whole row of Democrat booths and only one Republican booth. That's Hollywood for you!

But yay, both the propositions were defeated, so I feel like I accomplished something in that regard! :D

dlabtot
06-07-2006, 02:01 PM
Democrats can't get their shit together enough to even send a rep from hippieland.



CA-50 = hippieland? LOL what a totally uninformed comment.

Deogol
06-07-2006, 03:28 PM
CA-50 = hippieland? LOL what a totally uninformed comment.


I am not uninformed - I use to live there. It's just fun to call California hippieland.

I should have been more specific and called it barbie land - cuz there is so much plastic surgery they are more and more like barbie.

dlabtot
06-07-2006, 03:53 PM
Here is the breakdown for voter registration in that district:


* Democrats: 105,504 (29.69% of registered voters)
* Republicans: 156.437 (44.02%)
* Independent: 7,812 (2.20%)
* Green: 2,373 (0.67%)
* Libertarian: 2,232 (0.63%)
* Natural Law: 666 (0.19% )
* Peace and Freedom: 582 (0.16%)
* Other: 1,791 (0.50%)
* Decline to state: 78,012 (21.95%)
Source: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ror/15day_06/congressional.pdf

Those are the facts, though of course, I don't expect you to be interested in a fact-based, reality-based discussion.

Deogol
06-07-2006, 04:03 PM
What a quaint barb. I am sure you are so impressive.

space_Cadet_28
06-07-2006, 06:12 PM
its is a republican district. a republican is suppose to win, he should have won by a bigger margin.

Vaughn
06-07-2006, 07:35 PM
I'm not a Republican (they are much too left-wing for me)


Is that just a Cali thing? I have never heard anyone say that Republicans were too left-wing before :O

Where I come from Republicans are the polar opposite. Polar isn't even a strong enough word to describe how far apart the two terms are in my personal experiences.

Deogol
06-07-2006, 09:01 PM
Is that just a Cali thing? I have never heard anyone say that Republicans were too left-wing before :O

Where I come from Republicans are the polar opposite. Polar isn't even a strong enough word to describe how far apart the two terms are in my personal experiences.


I think she is saying something like "I am so far right, the Republicans are left of me."

Of course, dlabtot might be able to explain the joke to you - or maybe not.

Vaughn
06-07-2006, 10:04 PM
I think she is saying something like "I am so far right, the Republicans are left of me."

Of course, dlabtot might be able to explain the joke to you - or maybe not.

Ah, I see now but was that a personal dig at me /:O

If so, why?

Yekhefah
06-07-2006, 11:05 PM
The Republicans like to call themselves "conservative" but they are not. Conservativism is about small, limited government, low taxes, personal responsibility, and personal freedom. The modern Republican Party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, yet the national debt has increased more than under all 20th century administrations combined. Taxes are obscene, women's rights to their own bodies are being curtailed (with the so-called "conservative" party calling for even more restraint), the government spies on its citizens and demands more and more powers not within its legitimate constitutional authority.

In other words, whatever its rhetoric, the Republican Party is now just as left-wing as the Democratic Party. Both are abusing their power and overstepping their bounds. I don't agree with the Libertarian Party on everything, but at least they are actually conservative.

Casual Observer
06-08-2006, 11:25 AM
^ There's a reason GWB is called the modern-day LBJ.

Vaughn
06-08-2006, 01:53 PM
The Republicans like to call themselves "conservative" but they are not. Conservativism is about small, limited government, low taxes, personal responsibility, and personal freedom. The modern Republican Party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, yet the national debt has increased more than under all 20th century administrations combined. Taxes are obscene, women's rights to their own bodies are being curtailed (with the so-called "conservative" party calling for even more restraint), the government spies on its citizens and demands more and more powers not within its legitimate constitutional authority.

In other words, whatever its rhetoric, the Republican Party is now just as left-wing as the Democratic Party. Both are abusing their power and overstepping their bounds. I don't agree with the Libertarian Party on everything, but at least they are actually conservative.

Thankyou for the detailed explanation, Yekhefah. I can certainly understand why you would feel that way about modern day Republicans. I also very much agree with you about the Libertarian party 8)

I think the U.S. needs more Libertarian party members in government!

Yekhefah
06-08-2006, 02:00 PM
Start voting Libertarian, then! ;D

madmaxine
06-08-2006, 02:22 PM
****Warning****

Rant ahead

If it takes this state swinging toward traditionally, truly Republican ideals, fine...it really sucks here. The cost of living has pushed most middle class California residents into paycheck-to-paycheck existence. Our taxes are so high but nothing ever gets better.

Where I live, the worst offense is CalTrans not getting roadworks projects finished in time with population growth....this is raising the death rate from motor vehicle accidents.

I'll take any solution at this point.

*Ping* I just spoke to some US Postal Service Employees who told me their Retirement funds are getting razed. I told them CalPERS lost money on Enron (yes, CA invested in Enron, look it up) & I was so glad I had separated my pension share from that fund.
Don't trust the government...they're just a big fricking Mafia, but not run as tightly as La Cosa Nostra. LOL

dlabtot
06-08-2006, 02:47 PM
The Republicans like to call themselves "conservative" but they are not. Conservativism is about small, limited government, low taxes, personal responsibility, and personal freedom. The modern Republican Party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, yet the national debt has increased more than under all 20th century administrations combined. Taxes are obscene, women's rights to their own bodies are being curtailed (with the so-called "conservative" party calling for even more restraint), the government spies on its citizens and demands more and more powers not within its legitimate constitutional authority.

In other words, whatever its rhetoric, the Republican Party is now just as left-wing as the Democratic Party. Both are abusing their power and overstepping their bounds. I don't agree with the Libertarian Party on everything, but at least they are actually conservative.

I don't really understand why you lump the Democrats together with the Republicans... with the Repubs in control of all three branches of government, I don't see what power the Democrats can abuse.

I certainly agree with your criticisms of the Republican party, although not with your labelling. That is what the Republican party is all about - dishonest rhetoric used to mask policies that benefit the rich and the corporate class at the expense of the people. Yes there are a lot of idealistic people who believe the rhetoric, but they are not the people in power.

Mussolini described fascism as the marriage of corporate and government power and that is just what you are seeing now in our country where corporate interests are even invited to write the legislation that is supposed to regulate them.

FWIW, I'm a libertarian and a Democrat.

Yekhefah
06-08-2006, 03:03 PM
I see no difference between the two parties, beyond their rhetoric. Democrat administrations favor their wealthy corporate sponsors just as much. They're just a little more sly about it.

The problem is the political mindset in general. Public office is a joke nowadays; it's so sleazy and snoopy that decent people don't go into politics anymore. So whether the person has a D or an R next to his name, he's still most likely a corrupt sleazebag out to line his own pockets.

Vaughn
06-08-2006, 03:12 PM
Start voting Libertarian, then! ;D

When the option is there I do vote Libertarian. However it isn't a very common option :( Thus I usually vote Democrat because their stance on social issues is more in line with my own.

The hate that takes such precedence in the modern day Republican position on social issues is extremely disturbing to me. Maybe if there were more "real" Republicans I'd vote that way from time to time. But that isn't the case these days. Sigh.

dlabtot
06-08-2006, 03:36 PM
You know there was an interesting thread on DailyKos yesterday on this topic:


Traditional "libertarianism" holds that government is evil and thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad. While practical libertarians (as opposed to those who waste their votes on the Libertarian Party) have traditionally aligned themselves with the Republicans, it's clear that the modern GOP has no qualms about trampling on personal liberties. Heck, it's become their raison d' etre.

The problem with this form of libertarianism is that it assumes that only two forces can infringe on liberty -- the government and other individuals.

The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third danger to personal liberty -- the corporation. The Libertarian Dem understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers to our personal liberties.

Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn't believe government is the solution for everything. But it sure as heck is effective in checking the power of corporations.

In other words, government can protect our liberties from those who would infringe upon them -- corporations and other individuals.

So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government "Big Brother" efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

So far, this isn't much different than what a traditional libertarian believes. Here is where it begins to differ (and it shouldn't).

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.

The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties -- an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts, unduly burdened by the government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather than always get in the way, government can facilitate this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/7/131550/7297

Yekhefah
06-08-2006, 04:20 PM
Traditional "libertarianism" holds that government is evil and thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad.

Actually, that's not true. What this describes is anarchy, not libertarianism. Some government is necessary for a smoothly-functioning society; however, it should stay within its legitimate boundaries. In this country, those boundaries are spelled out in the federal Constitution, state constitutions, city charters, etc. There is nothing "evil" about the desire to keep government within these perfectly reasonable constraints.


(as opposed to those who waste their votes on the Libertarian Party)

Wow, no bias there! ::)
Translation of a "wasted vote": "a vote my party didn't get."

I vote for candidates, not parties. If the Democratic Party is bitter because it is losing votes to third parties, then perhaps it should run better candidates. I see no reason to vote for candidates who do not represent my values, just because they have a particular party affiliation.

This country has not always had Republicans vs. Democrats. Lots of parties have come and gone. They start out with new ideas, get comfortable, and then get replaced when they cease to make a difference. This happens through third-party votes.

dlabtot
06-08-2006, 05:13 PM
I vote for candidates, not parties. If the Democratic Party is bitter because it is losing votes to third parties, then perhaps it should run better candidates.

First off, it would be better not to conflate individuals who happen to call themselves Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians, with the political parties of the same name.

And I'm certainly not bitter about losing votes to Libertarians because they've never gotten enough votes to matter. There is a Constitution Party that is organized pretty strongly here in Montana, and they tend to take away more votes from the Republicans than the Democrats, I say, yay Constitution Party! lol


I see no reason to vote for candidates who do not represent my values, just because they have a particular party affiliation.

I certainly would not either. In fact I actively work within the party to have candidates and a platform that do represent my values. That's part of the process, too. Look at what the grassroots are doing in CT, they are trying to take down an incumbent Senator because he's not representing them, and they have a good shot at it. I hope to do the same thing here in 2008.


This country has not always had Republicans vs. Democrats. Lots of parties have come and gone. They start out with new ideas, get comfortable, and then get replaced when they cease to make a difference. This happens through third-party votes.

What we now call the Democratic Party had it's origins way back with Jefferson but didnt really coalesce into a party until Jackson's day (1830s). Which caused the formation of the Whig's in opposition. The Whig's lasted only a few decades, and were replaced by the Republicans in the 1850s. And it's been Democrat vs Republican ever since.
more details: Evolution of American political parties from the Revolution to the Reconstruction (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1486844)

Deogol
06-08-2006, 05:43 PM
When the option is there I do vote Libertarian. However it isn't a very common option :( Thus I usually vote Democrat because their stance on social issues is more in line with my own.

The hate that takes such precedence in the modern day Republican position on social issues is extremely disturbing to me. Maybe if there were more "real" Republicans I'd vote that way from time to time. But that isn't the case these days. Sigh.


But the democrats just smile and stab you in the back. Gore's wife started the Parents Music Resource Center - in other words attempts to censor and fine radio stations for playing certain types of music.

They sound all alternative energy and such until the time comes for it to show up in their back yard (aka Kennedy not wanting wind turbines on his horizon) - nor have they ever really financed anything. Just a lot of hot air.

Take a look at the schools and the like in many democratically controlled areas too.

I don't mean to make ya feel helpless, but they are the same man, they are the same.

Just write yourself in!

Yekhefah
06-08-2006, 05:54 PM
^^^ <wild applause>

dlabtot
06-08-2006, 07:51 PM
To compare the misguided efforts 20 years ago of the private citizen wife of a Democratic politician who hasn't even been in office for five years, with the ongoing assault on the constitution by the people actually in charge of the government is ludicrous.

The Republicans in power are spying on Americans with warrants, compiling databases of every phone call made in the United States, holding American citizens without charges, kidnapping people and whisking them off to secret prisons, torturing people who havent even been charged with crimes, ignoring the parts of the law they don't choose to abide by with 'signing statements', starting wars of aggression on false premises, ad nauseum, and you are saying that because Tipper Gore (not even a politician, btw) started the PMRC, Republicans and Democrats are the same? ::)

Yekhefah
06-08-2006, 08:00 PM
You don't think any of that happened under Clinton? Really?

dlabtot
06-08-2006, 08:10 PM
Well Im only basing my posts on what I know. Why don't you inform me about some of those things happening under Clinton if you have any knowledge of that? Thanks.


NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm)
The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed (http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060606fege02)
Europe rights watchdog says CIA prisons, rendition flights involve 'web' of nations (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/europe-rights-watchdog-says-cia.php)
Bush challenges hundreds of laws (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/)
Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/)

Yekhefah
06-08-2006, 08:17 PM
Just off the top of my head... there was an unprovoked war or two in Eastern Europe designed to distract the public from sexual dalliances. There were untold numbers of citizens subjected to unwarranted arrest, search, and seizure (as well as police execution), mostly due to the "War on Drugs." (Only some drugs; pharmaceutical companies still keep most of the population doped up on something.) Google "Echelon" for evidence of NSA spying on telephone conversations. As for torture etc., I'm sure it happened because it always has; it's only now that someone is bringing it up.

Nothing new under the sun. At least Clinton was an intelligent, likeable guy though.

PhaedrusZ
06-08-2006, 08:17 PM
Well Im only basing my posts on what I know. Why don't you inform me about some of those things happening under Clinton if you have any knowledge of that? Thanks.

Ever heard of the "Clipper Chip"? Under whose watch as President was this program being developed?

http://www.epic.org/crypto/clipper/

dlabtot
06-08-2006, 08:27 PM
Im certainly not in favor of the clipper chip, but I again must point out that this does not even come close to rising to the level of the things I referenced.

As to the characterizations of the balkans conflicts as 'unprovoked', I would take issue, and I would like to hear about the falsehoods and misrepresentations that Clinton made to the American people prior to this that was equivalent to lying about uranium in the State of the Union speech by Bush, or the outing of a CIA agent by Cheney. I would also like you to compare the cost in lives between those wars and this one. Perhaps it would also be instructive to compare how successful those military operations compared to this one.

Echelon was not used domestically until Bush ordered it in 2002: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm

But don't get me wrong. I despise Clinton. He was the ultimate corporatist Democrat. A very competent President, though. It's amazing how the current administration is both evil and incompetent, I don't know whether their incompetence is a blessing or a curse, we might be in more trouble if they were competent.

Yekhefah
06-08-2006, 08:31 PM
ANY successful career politician is going to be "corporatist." That's how they get to be where they are. No one in Congress, the White House, a governor's mansion, whatever, is there because s/he is working for the people. They know who took them to the dance.

That's why we have third parties. When politicians (or parties) get too comfortable and forget who voted for them, then it's time to bring in someone who can still remember.

dlabtot
06-08-2006, 08:47 PM
Well no I don't agree with you that any successful politician is going to be a corporatist. Tuesday night we won the Democratic primary for the Senate for Jon Tester (http://www.testerforsenate.com/) , a family farmer, an organic farmer, and a great guy, I've met him a bunch of times and let me tell you - he's no corporatist. We won in a landslide despite being almost written off a few months ago, underdogs against a better financed candidate, son of a politically connected family, and we won by people talking to people, and a huge grassroots volunteer effort. Come November we are gonna send him to Washington and shake things up a bit.

Yekhefah
06-08-2006, 08:52 PM
Wait until he gets a term or two under his belt. Trust me, he'll forget all about you. If not, you got lucky with one. But if he wants any power, he's going to play the game and deep down I bet he knows that.

dlabtot
06-08-2006, 08:56 PM
And why do you say that without knowing him? 'Real power' - if he is elected Senator he will have real power, especially if Dems take the Senate. If he were running as a Libertarian instead of as a Democrat would you feel differently? Why?

Yekhefah
06-08-2006, 09:03 PM
No, I probably wouldn't feel differently, except that a Libertarian at this point wouldn't have the monolithic backing of the Democratic Party behind him so he would have to stay a little closer to his roots. For awhile, anyway. But if you think Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean or any other prominent Democrat gives two shits about the people, then I can't help you.

I'm sure your Tester guy is a wonderful person. But if he gets elected to the Senate and lasts a couple of terms, I'd bet my car that he'll start caring much more about staying in the Senate than shaking up his corporate sponsorship.

dlabtot
06-08-2006, 09:06 PM
I'll take that bet. And I think you should wait till someone actually has corporate sponsorship before you level that charge at them.

Yekhefah
06-08-2006, 09:13 PM
I hope you're right. It would be a refreshing change.