| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2010/11/2-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54001 Activity:nil |
11/2 California Uber Alles is such a great song
\_ Yes, and it was written about Jerry Brown. I was thinking this
as I cast my vote for Meg Whitman. I am independent, but I
typically vote Democrat (e.g., I voted for Boxer). However, I
can't believe we elected this retread.
\_ You voted for the billionaire that ran HP into the ground
and then tried to buy the job of CA governor? Really?
I almost voted Green or Libertarian, but never once thought
of voting for Whitman.
\_ wrong billionaire.
\_ Sorry, couldn't tell the difference.
\_ Makes a big difference. I hated Fiorina when she was
CEO at HP. I hate her even more now that I know her
backwards politics. However, Whitman is a RINO. She
endorsed Gore. She opposed Bush on global warming.
She supported Boxer's 2004 campaign. I am not
saying I love the woman, but *JERRY BROWN*? Been
there, did that, was not that great. As for her
money, I actually prefer people spend their own
fortunes instead of owing a thousand political favors
in exchange for donations. Face it, most candidates
are trying to buy the election on some level and
the ones that aren't don't get very far. You are so
informed you couldn't even separate Whitman from
Fiorina so I hope you didn't vote.
\_ Your point about having a politician who is beholden to no one
because she didnt need to accept any donations is interesting. I
never thought of that one before. I really don't think she was
qualified in anyway though. she flipflopped her way around
WHILE running for governor and hadn't even voted for decades.
On the plus side, she proved she will kick your ass, physically,
if you mess with her.
\_ After experiencing eight years of Bush I know
enough to never vote for a Republican.
\_ Sounds pretty closed-minded. I agree that Bush was
an idiot, but I am not going to shut out 50%
of candidates based solely on party affiliation.
You'll realize how silly you sound if/when
you grow up.
\_ I am old enough to learn from my mistakes.
When will you learn?
\_ Voting for a candidate based solely on
a D or R next their name means you
have a long way to go.
\_ No, the GOP has been universally venal
and/or incompetent for a long time. I
thought about it some more and decided
that if the GOP somehow actually elects
a decent leader (in spite of my vote
against them) who ends up doing a good
job tackling real problems, I would
be willing to reconsider my stance. But
after watching bad and then worse
leadership from them, I have no confidence
in their collective decision making.
Give me a Republican president at least
as good as Reagan or Clinton or a
CA governor that is halfway decent and I
give them another look. But it is hard
to see this happening anytime soon.
Btw, it is quite a bit of difference to
"vote for a candidate based solely on
[party affiliation]" and refusing to
vote for a candidate based on party
affiliation. Hopefully you can see the
difference. I expect to vote for quite
a few Green and Libertarian candidates
in the future.
\_ Wasn't Reagan a Republican President
as good as Reagan? And GH Bush
wasn't bad. GWB is the only bad
example in the last 40 years.
\_ Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Rove, the
whole crowd has been terrible for
at least a decade. And the ones I
see them bringing up as future
leaders (Palin, really?) seem
even worse. Lincoln was a good
Republican President too but he
doesn't say much about the GOP
today. Same with Reagan, he was
elected what, almost 30 years ago?
Today's Republican Party would run
a common sense pragmatist like
Reagan out of the party.
\_ What about, I dunno, Meg
Whitman?!
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gyqr8d (LA Times)
"Strikingly, almost one in five California
voters said they would never cast a ballot
for a Republican." Not that nutty an idea,
it turns out.
\_ The republican party got us into a (seemed a good idea at the time)
war in Afghanistan and with my laser like hindsight a completely
unecessary conflict in Iraq. And they accept no responsibility.
And shitheads in SF riot over a baseball game, but not an election.
\_ Dems in Congress were in favor of the wore on terra as well
\_ Some Dems. A majority voted against it. Well against the
Iraq invasion, at least. I think they all voted for the
"Patriot" Act. |
| 5/23 |
|
| preview.tinyurl.com/2gyqr8d -> articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/19/local/la-me-poll-20101119 Republican Party For the GOP, California is a deep blue hole A new Los Angeles Times/USC poll shows a deep reluctance among many voters to side with a GOP candidate and broad swaths of the state holding views on government's role that conflict with Republican tenets. November 19, 2010|By Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times The road to redemption for the Republican Party in California may be even rougher than November's statewide electoral drubbing indicated, as a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll shows a deep reluctance among many voters to side with a GOP candidate and broad swaths of the state holding views on government's role that conflict with Republican tenets. California voters surveyed in the poll repudiated the party's stance on illegal immigration by endorsing a host of positions intended to make it easier for the undocumented to gain legal status. Their support for same-sex marriage outnumbered that opposing any legal recognition by more than 3 to 1 Californians also endorsed an assertive role for government in protecting minority citizens, regulating corporations and helping the poor and needy, and rejected arguments that an activist role for government had harmed the fiber of American society. The negative overlay both explained and helped determine the fates of the party's candidates in November. As a GOP tide swept the nation, Republicans here lost all statewide offices, with one contest, for attorney general, still unresolved but leaning toward the Democrat. Republicans here also failed to gain any congressional seats and lost a legislative seat. Strikingly, almost one in five California voters said they would never cast a ballot for a Republican. Only 5% of California voters were as emphatically anti-Democrat. "I don't know how any Republican thinks they can win in California after looking at this," said GOP pollster Linda DiVall, who with Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg directed the survey for The Times and the USC College of Letters, Arts & Sciences. The party faces a critical collision between its own voters, a minority in California, and those it needs to attract to win. The most faithful Republicans this year -- those who voted for both Meg Whitman for governor and Carly Fiorina for Senate -- said by a 27-point margin that to be more successful, Republicans should nominate "true conservatives." But among the majority of voters who spurned Whitman and Fiorina in November -- and in whose good graces any future winning candidate would need to be -- the results were reversed. Forty-three percent said that future Republican candidates needed to be more moderate. Only 20% said that Republicans should nominate "true conservatives." |