"Let's be honest. . . Why would we listen to losers?

[island911]

Govenator Schwarzenegger recently volleyed this statement/question.

I think he may have a point; Just what are the losers bringing to the table?

Is it the brilliance of "The unteachable ignorance of the red states" ?

.. .Or perhaps it's the ficticious "State-by-State IQ map" ?

Here on this board, we even have the losers angerly comparing our President to Hitler, as a means to paint him as a facist. (in an apparent effort to ease their need to hate the guy)

So really, Just what are the losers bringing to the table?

[pwd72s]

Island, I do think you & Arnie are making a good point. One I'm sure is not lost among the GOP Congressional majority and our President.

[techweenie]

Not too bright to ignore 48% of the voters.

Especially if you consider that particular 48% probably contributes something like 55% of the GNP.

[jyl]

Well, in Arnold's case he is calling the CA state legislators
"losers". Which may be right, frankly. He is suggesting that retired judges draw the electoral precinct lines, to prevent the blatant gerry-mandering that the Dems did in CA (and that the Reps did in TX). I would support that.

(As you can tell, I don't think much of the record of the past or current CA state governors or legislators. Arnold has not changed that view.)

That is different from suggesting that 48% of the American voters are "losers" whose views can be disregarded. That is a very bad idea, and if the Rep majority in Washington choose to do so, it is probably good news for the Dem party.

[techweenie]

My apologies. If he was talking about the state legislators of California, he may well have a valid point. But I would think a constituent of one of those legislators might feel differently.

[jyl]

Originally posted by techweenie
My apologies. If he was talking about the state legislators of California, he may well have a valid point. But I would think a constituent of one of those legislators might feel differently.

I am a constituent, in fact.

The CA state government has done a very bad job over the past 10 years. We've had some bad governors (Pete Wilson, Gray Davis). The legislators have gerry-mandered themselves into comfortable security - many of them run for re-election unopposed. During the 1999-2000 Bubble the state government abandoned financial discipline, cut taxes and raised spending. When the bubble burst the budget fell into a deep and structural deficit.

This is basically the same story as the federal government under Bush, except that CA by law must balance its budget every year.

Instead of making the tough decisions to balance the budget, the state government played games - drew down reserve accounts, manipulated accounting assumptions, etc - to achieve "fake" balanced budgets.

When Ahnold replaced Gray Davis, he told voters that he would balance the budget through innovative thinking and cutting waste, i.e. without raising taxes or cutting services.

This was total lying bullc**p, that the voters were stupid or star-struck enough to believe. Ahnold's budgets have resorted to the same tricks as previous budgets, and his big innovation was an enormous bond issue to temporarily paper over the deficit. (I voted against the bond issue, on the theory that having the state's budget to be thrown into absolute crisis was the only way Ahnold and the legislators would be forced to make tough decisions.)

Anyway, we now continue to have a severe budget problem, state services continue to get slowly strangled - everything from education to fish&game to low-income assistance to basic infrastructure - and politicians keep looking for ways to raise tax revenue without looking like they're raising tax revenue. In CA, this last means the state confiscates tax revenues from the counties and cities, in effect pushing budget deficits down to the local level. For example, earlier this year a local district was going to eliminate all high school sports, all elementary school music, and all libraries and all counselors.

(A group of teachers and grade school kids spent their spring break walking from the Bay Area to Sacramento, appx 80 miles; when they arrived at the State Capitol after 8 days of walking, Ahnold refused to meet with them.)

So, yes, I think the CA state legislature and the CA state governor - Arnold himself - are collectively "losers". Maybe they'll actually tackle the state's problems and in a year I'll post my apology to them here. I would welcome the chance to do that.

[fintstone]

How can Arnold be expected to solve CA's problems when the citizens continue to vote enormous amounts of money to bond issues like they just did?...where do they thinkthat money comes from, anyways???You will probably have to eliminate quite a few more school programs while funding stem cell research!
Alas..the citizens of my county have never met a bond issue they didn't like either. I talked to dozens of people here after the recent election who vote "yes" to all the bond issues...but didn't know exactly what they were voting on with any of them. Several told me that they did so because, as advertised, they would not raise taxes...and of course "property taxes are too high and should be lowered."

[tabs]

Hey JYL I like what you say even if yu do consider yourself a Liberal .....it's accurate. Now I like Arnold he's giving it a try, but he has an uphill battle...with the legislature, economy and peoples expectations. No easy task for a politican representing people who are used to lying out in the sunshine all year long..

[Seahawk]

From the Grey Lady...well worth the time.

The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS

Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.

The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of dogma and reaction.

In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues.

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.

[cool_chick]

Curious...

Who's the "winner" and who's the "loser" here?

[350HP930]

Hey, bush lost in 2K and we had to listen to him for 4 years.

[Moneyguy1]

Seahawk

Much of what you say has merit. But, I will humbly contend that this election hinged upon fear as the overwhelming factor..Fear of change, fear of terrorists blowing up things, fear of the unknown, all items that, as we are taught in first year logic, are items that cannot be proven or disproven. Case in point...There has been no attack on American soil in three years. That's good. But, there was none in the previous eight years, nearly three times as long a period of time. Could one not infer that that was a more successful effort? Can neither be proven or disproven, but the former is touted as absolute fact. Fighting in the Middle East keeps them insurgents and evil doers so busy they can't come over here and make trouble. Another unprovable, although somewhat negated by our porous borders, with which I am very familiar, since I live in Tucson.

What you are seeing is not a vast coalition. You are seeing a blip on the long timeframe of the country's history. Things change; people change, attitudes change. Right now, many Americans are convinced that the current occupant in the White House is a totally moral and ethical individual. That perception can and possibly will change with time, given the whimsical nature of the populace. It all depends on how one defines moral, and that definition is in a state of continual flux. I am not convinced that the president is as advertised in all respects, nor should he be. He is, like the rest of us, a complex individual with a predisposition to a certain way of behaving. The next three or four years will be interesting/ Let's just pray they are not more dangerous than the last three.

[911pcars]

MoneyGuy,
I completely concur. Good summary of the situation.

Sherwood

[red-beard]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Seahawk

Much of what you say has merit. But, I will humbly contend that this election hinged upon fear as the overwhelming factor..Fear of change, fear of terrorists blowing up things, fear of the unknown, all items that, as we are taught in first year logic, are items that cannot be proven or disproven. Case in point...There has been no attack on American soil in three years. That's good. But, there was none in the previous eight years, nearly three times as long a period of time. Could one not infer that that was a more successful effort? Can neither be proven or disproven, but the former is touted as absolute fact. Fighting in the Middle East keeps them insurgents and evil doers so busy they can't come over here and make trouble. Another unprovable, although somewhat negated by our porous borders, with which I am very familiar, since I live in Tucson.

What you are seeing is not a vast coalition. You are seeing a blip on the long timeframe of the country's history. Things change; people change, attitudes change. Right now, many Americans are convinced that the current occupant in the White House is a totally moral and ethical individual. That perception can and possibly will change with time, given the whimsical nature of the populace. It all depends on how one defines moral, and that definition is in a state of continual flux. I am not convinced that the president is as advertised in all respects, nor should he be. He is, like the rest of us, a complex individual with a predisposition to a certain way of behaving. The next three or four years will be interesting/ Let's just pray they are not more dangerous than the last three.

1993 WTC
1995 OK City
1996 Atlanta

Many plots existed. One was accidentally foiled, by a quick thinking Customs agent.

[jyl]

Originally posted by fintstone
How can Arnold be expected to solve CA's problems when the citizens continue to vote enormous amounts of money to bond issues like they just did?...where do they thinkthat money comes from, anyways???You will probably have to eliminate quite a few more school programs while funding stem cell research!
Alas..the citizens of my county have never met a bond issue they didn't like either. I talked to dozens of people here after the recent election who vote "yes" to all the bond issues...but didn't know exactly what they were voting on with any of them. Several told me that they did so because, as advertised, they would not raise taxes...and of course "property taxes are too high and should be lowered."

The stem cell research bond proposition (CA prop 71) was unusual. Arnold campaigned for it. Californians voted for it, possibly as a "take that" to Bush. I voted against it (while I think embryonic stem cell research is a legitimate and worthwhile area of scientific research, I don't know why it should get vastly more funding than other areas of research or, as you point out, displace money that could go to education and other uses.

[red-beard]

Stem Cells have not cured one disease. Remember Interferon in the Late 70's? It was supposed to cure all cancer and even the common cold.

I personally think we should study stem cells, but Prop 71 was a huge give-away to a company in financial trouble.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by red-beard
Stem Cells have not cured one disease. Remember Interferon in the Late 70's? It was supposed to cure all cancer and even the common cold.

I personally think we should study stem cells, but Prop 71 was a huge give-away to a company in financial trouble.

Are you a scientist by training?

One could argue that taxes are a give-away to a company (ie the government) in financial trouble...

[campbellcj]

Yep, it's effin disappointing that "we" voted to take on even more bond debt to fund private medical research that would ultimately benefit a tiny fraction of the population IF ANY -- and primarily the researchers' pocketbooks in the near term -- whilst nothing has been done in this State for years to dramatically improve education, law enforcement, ER/trauma centers, etc. I am not necessarily opposed to stem cell research or any legitimate scientific pursuits that could benefit society, but that doesn't mean the public at large should be taxed to fund these efforts!

What's next, are we going to publicly fund the pharmas' R&D costs to crank up their drug profit margins even further at our expense? Why not fund med school education for anyone interested? Ah hell, why don't we just socialize all medical research, education, production, distribution? Prop 71 set a very dangerous precedent IMHO.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by nostatic
Are you a scientist by training?

One could argue that taxes are a give-away to a company (ie the government) in financial trouble...

I am an Engineer and Statistician.

Fortunately YOU will be paying for it, not me.

[nostatic]

well, I voted no on 71, but yes, I'll be paying for it. For those that don't know, the line between "public" and "private" funding of basic and applied research is so blurred it can barely be seen anymore. During my postdoc days at UCSF, almost every single faculty member in the biochem/biophys and pharmaceutical chem departments was involved in a biotech startup. And that was 10 years ago...it has only gotten more intertwined. In fact we are currently working hard to come up with new institutional models to better deal with interdisciplinary/collaborative research that is funded through combinations of industry/gov/private money.

So have court challenges to 71 been filed yet? I would imagine that if it is so obviously a sham to bail out a single company, someone would feel compelled to litigate.