Saturday, October 09, 2010

Mixed Feelings about California

I've been watching the Meg and Jerry show for some time now, and though I know Meg is more of a fiscal conservative - she would just about have to be - and would be better for California, I think it may be time to let the asylum run its course and fall to pieces as an example to the rest of the country. At present the most Meg Whitman can do is slow the bleeding... But the patient will remain terminal and in denial. Let's face it... The majority of Californians are absolute idiots, and they deserve the mire into which they've fallen. Jerry Brown, who represents more of the same in California, is even in the polls... Case closed.

I sort of feel the same way about the coming congressional elections. If the Republicans gain control of one or both houses, they will be able to do just enough to slightly improve the economy... and Obama will be re-elected. And, the senate will be composed of the same RINO's that want to get along... The Republicans will share the economy with the President and the Tea Party may lose the Independents... And probaby stall.

I believe modest gains would be the best thing for the cause of conservatism and smaller government... and facilitate the removal of more RINO's and President O in 2012.



Delta said...


An honest and open questions: Do the governorships really present a representation of a political party/president? I always thought the Legislative Branch (i.e. Senate/House) only did that. Never thought of governors. How does this affect the elections? Is it nation-wide overall? Or only state by state? Thanks for putting up with my questions! (smile)

Malott said...


Governors and state legislators draw up the voting districts, the district (geographical) maps for the House of representatives... which effects the balance in the House. State Democrats have done it for years... it's called gerrymandering.

Is that what you meant?

SkyePuppy said...

We have a few generally conservative enclaves in California: Orange County, home of successful business people; San Diego County, home of multiple Navy & Marine bases; and the Central Valley (Bakersfield area), home of rural people.

Los Angeles and San Francisco skew the state so far to the left that if California were an island, it would flip right over like Guam.

As for gerrymandering, that was a bi-partisan effort here. The Republicans in the legislature have historically colluded with the Democrats to keep their seats safe, giving the GOP permanent minority status. There's an anti-gerrymandering proposition on the ballot in November. Here's hoping it passes.

Delta said...

Malott and Skye: good points. But, what I meant was in terms of having some sort of power in the decision making process pro/con the president: governors do not have influence where members of the House/Senate do - correct? So, aren't the House/Senate seats more important than the governorships right now? :-/

Just not sure I can get all that excited about the governor races.

SkyePuppy said...


Governors only affect the individual state, although some states are more equal than others. For California this year, the governor's race has the potential to affect the country, because if Brown wins, our state's collapse will probably come quickly. And the repercussions will ripple out everywhere else.

If Meg Whitman wins AND IF she governs similar to the way Chris Christie in NJ or Bobby Jindal in LA govern, then we have a chance. I'm not holding my breath about her, but we've got a better chance with her than with Brown.

Grammy said...

Here's my paranoia showing. Let's say a state's economy seriously fails. Don't you think some big emergency federal bail out would get launched? Why not??? Along with the bail out the state would somehow become beholden to the federal government. And, bingo! The erosion of state's rights begins. Then a conversation about "why do we have states anyway?" begins. And that is the tip of the iceburg called one world order. It's early in the morning...pardon my wild imaginings.