Chuck Devore - 2010 Boxer opponent

[Dirtbozz]

Any idea about Chuck Devore's position on the Second Amendment. From what I have read he is a Conservative, but his site does not mention his position about guns.

It would be a great thing if we can send Boxer (and her "title") home, where they belong. :43:

[M198]

# Gun Owners of California – A for 2006
# National Rifle Association – A for 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_DeVore#Legislative_scorecards)

[Dirtbozz]

# Gun Owners of California – A for 2006
# National Rifle Association – A for 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_DeVore#Legislative_scorecards)

Thanks, I didn't think to check them.

He may be a good choice. I am going to study his record a bit more.

Boxer may be tough to beat, but I am going to do what I can.

The "please call me Senator" video will be a great ad campaign. She is unbelievably arrogant, and it shows.

Health Care and Cap and Tax are just the start. Obama will be after our guns next. 2010 is our only real hope

[jkchan83]

I'm glad to see that he's doing his part to support our gun rights. Anyone who does that is better than Boxer.

[7x57]

The problem is, I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence that either Boxer or Feinstein are beatable in this state.

7x57

[highpowermatch]

Any idea about Chuck Devore's position on the Second Amendment. From what I have read he is a Conservative, but his site does not mention his position about guns.

It would be a great thing if we can send Boxer (and her "title") home, where they belong. :43:

Man that would hit the spot

[lioneaglegriffin]

The problem is, I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence that either Boxer or Feinstein are beatable in this state.

7x57

i heard rumblings that Boxer is vulenerable this year for some reason, and some other liberal has a chance to replace her.

[Dirtbozz]

The problem is, I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence that either Boxer or Feinstein are beatable in this state.

7x57

Given the "over reach" that is going on, it may not be so tough. Obama and the Democrats are scaring the hell out of people. Gangster tactics don't set well with freedom loving Americans, even some Democrats. The timing might be right.

I, for one, will not just lay down. Now is the time to start the fight. My family and I are going to attend the Freedom Rally in Tulare on the forth.

www.centralvalleyteaparty.com

What are you doing on the Forth? The greater the numbers the better. It's not just about taxes. It is being called a Freedom Rally for a reason.

Watch this video. Some may call the first scene fantasy, but it could be our future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4s3iqlQxvI

:79:

[Gator Monroe]

The problem is, I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence that either Boxer or Feinstein are beatable in this state.

7x57

The Ferver/Anger at Obama & Democrat failures in California & Nationally will sweep away any lock held by any Dem Nationwide on re-election /election in midterms !

[bulgron]

The Ferver/Anger at Obama & Democrat failures in California & Nationally will sweep away any lock held by any Dem Nationwide on re-election /election in midterms !

I hope this is true, but from what I can tell the liberals around me aren't exactly angry at Obama & the Dems. Disappointed is the strongest word I might use, and some of them aren't even that. Some are still waiting patiently for Obama & the Dem majority to deliver.

Of course, they never will deliver, but you can't get people who operate on emotion and faith to believe that.

The best thing we have going for us in the midterms is that (1) Obama isn't running and so all the race-based voters won't feel compelled to show up at the polls and (2) there is quite a lot of anger out there that might get more people involved in political campaigns that in the past never bothered.

The downside to (2) is that the people involved in the Tea Parties aren't exactly enthusiastic supporters of the Republicans either.

Bottom line: I don't believe Boxer is "unbeatable." OTOH, in order to beat Boxer the Republicans are going to have to run someone who is palatable to the average Californian voter. This means backing way off of social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and (yes) guns. If the California Republicans can get their message squarely placed on fiscal conservatism and keep it there, without being drawn into a prolonged debate on social issues, they have a chance. But if the Dems control the debate and manage to turn it into Gays, Guns, and God, then the Republicans are going to lose once again, and Boxer gets another 6 years to corrode our Republic.

[Glock22Fan]

Rasmussen polls here (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_rasmussen_poll/2009/06/30/230686.html) are suggesting that support for Obama is falling, and that if things develop as expected, the Dems could be in for a big shock next year.

I hope it isn't wishful thinking, but it has always been my belief that Obama will be a one term president because I'm expecting his support to implode in the next couple of years.

"What we've seen in the last month is a growing number of people who strongly disapprove, and we're seeing it at a time when the president's honeymoon is coming to an end and people are beginning to look at the policies that he's promoting."

The closeness of the approve/disapprove numbers are "yet another indicator of how evenly divided our nation is," he added.

On specific issues, Rasmussen disclosed:

"When we talk about healthcare reform and the proposal the president is talking about, the country is fairly evenly divided. But those who have strong opinions tend to oppose the plan more than support it.

"On the cap-and-trade legislation [to reduce carbon emissions], 42 percent believe it's going to hurt the economy. Only 19 percent believe it's going to help.

"The takeover of General Motors is strongly opposed.

"Right now those things are weighing the president down. What's going to tell over the next year is how the economy performs. If a year from today, GM is doing great and throwing off profits and getting the taxpayers their money back, people will say we were wrong, the president was right, and it's great for him. But if GM is back asking for more bailouts, the president's numbers will be substantially weaker than they are today . . .

"If the economy responds negatively over the next year, it is going to hurt the Democrats in 2010.

"What the passage of legislation will actually do is bring ownership of the economy and economic performance more and more into Barack Obama's camp.

"Just over a month ago, 62 percent of Americans said that no matter what's happened in the last six months, George Bush is still more to blame for the economic mess than Barack Obama. That number fell to 54 percent, and the more of Obama's policies that are put in place, the more the blame or perhaps the credit will shift to the current president."

[Dirtbozz]

The Ferver/Anger at Obama & Democrat failures in California & Nationally will sweep away any lock held by any Dem Nationwide on re-election /election in midterms !

The more Obama, Pelosi and Reid screw us over, the better our chances. Now is the time! :43:

[7x57]

Given the "over reach" that is going on, it may not be so tough. Obama and the Democrats are scaring the hell out of people.


It's easy to imagine serious backlash many places: Wyoming, Texas, New Hampshire say. Much harder here. We don't have representative government, we have gerrymandering. It's hard to have backlash when the general election is predetermined.


What are you doing on the Forth?


You know, I can program in Forth, and I can Go Forth, but that's different than the Fourth. :D

Hard to do much with the three-month old, but possibly attending a Tea Party rally. I'm ambivalent about that approach, but since the Democratic Party News Media says they're Bad I interpret that to mean they might be worthwhile. :rolleyes:

But if they have an effect, I expect it to be other places besides California.

7x57

[7x57]

OTOH, in order to beat Boxer the Republicans are going to have to run someone who is palatable to the average Californian voter. This means backing way off of social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and (yes) guns.


People say that, but the assertion seems to be based on the idea that there is no cost to balance the benefit of such a move. Do you think you will attract enough of these swing voters to more than make up for all the voters that simply won't show up at the polls because of this move?

The problem in California is gerrymandering, and to some extent nothing is soluble without including a fix for that. Whether the recent initiative actually fixes it is open to doubt, of course.

7x57

[bulgron]

People say that, but the assertion seems to be based on the idea that there is no cost to balance the benefit of such a move. Do you think you will attract enough of these swing voters to more than make up for all the voters that simply won't show up at the polls because of this move?

Do you really think that falling silent on those issues, and focusing instead on fiscal issues that matter to almost everyone, will really drive conservative voters away from the polls? If so, they're incredibly short-sighted.


The problem in California is gerrymandering, and to some extent nothing is soluble without including a fix for that. Whether the recent initiative actually fixes it is open to doubt, of course.

7x57

How does gerrymandering have any effect on state-wide offices such as the governor's race, or federal senate seats? The fact that Boxer and Feinstein keep getting elected to those seats means that either California is way more liberal that I think it actually is, or that the Republican party really is that incompetent in this state.

[bigcalidave]

I just figured out what else we can do with our Californians for sensible gun control PAC ! Press release that CSGC is strongly against Barbara boxer due to new information ! That could sway some voters. I hate that *****.

[airbrusher]

The problem is, I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence that either Boxer or Feinstein are beatable in this state.

7x57

We should get Cancer to run. That would beat them

[gn3hz3ku1*]

can you get worse than boxer and her haggy friend from CA? yuckky

[HunterJim]

Chuck who?

jim

[7x57]

Do you really think that falling silent on those issues, and focusing instead on fiscal issues that matter to almost everyone, will really drive conservative voters away from the polls?


Very possibly, because they know very well that a lot of the inside-the-beltway Republicans would like to not just fall silent on those issues, but abandon them.


If so, they're incredibly short-sighted.


Very possibly, but don't forget that these are the people who supply the most manpower in the ground game. It's quite possible that we lost the last election to the fact that neither they nor the Libertarians liked McCain, and our turnout was *down*. The news media would rather be flayed alive than admit it, but Obama's margin was so slender that if Republican turnout had been normal, McCain might have won.

Possibly they are shortsighted. But you are equally shortsighted if you don't plan based on who will turn out to knock on doors, man the phones, and get out the vote on election day.


How does gerrymandering have any effect on state-wide offices such as the governor's race, or federal senate seats?


Only indirectly, by creating a party that has more influence to use in the election. But notice that Republicans can win the governorship in CA. (On the other hand, they are much more often RINOs, which is the real indication that the state is liberal, if not as nearly as much as the gerrymandered legislature).

Then notice that they find they can't govern as Republicans because the Legislature is a hereditary aristocracy.


The fact that Boxer and Feinstein keep getting elected to those seats means that either California is way more liberal that I think it actually is,


Don't forget the institutional power. The party that turns out more voters gets a big lift statewide. Republicans that are demoralized because of the structural lockout of the legislature don't turn out as much, and so indirectly the legislative stranglehold does affect the statewide elections.

One of the things we were told when doing door-to-door in Nevada was that while we would ask about the downticket, we really weren't concerned about it if we could turn people out for the top of the ticket. Both the party and the downticket candidates (by chance I actually knocked on the door of one of the local candidates we were campaigning for) knew that someone turning out to vote for McCain but without opinions about the downticket is predisposed to vote for other party candidates come election day. IOW, if you turn out your people for one candidate, every other candidate of the same party gets a lift.


or that the Republican party really is that incompetent in this state.

I shall not undertake to defend the thesis that the California Republican party is competent until I feel I have some evidence to argue from. :chris:

7x57

[anthonyca]

The problem is, I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence that either Boxer or Feinstein are beatable in this state.

7x57

I understand why you say this. When I give examples of bills Boxer and Fienstien have pushed most people including my grandmother say they would vote them out of office but the conversation always seems to end in something like, "there is nothing we can do" or "they are unbeatable so I don't even bother".

What if we had that attitude about the British Empire in 1776?

[7x57]

I understand why you say this. When I give examples of bills Boxer and Fienstien have pushed most people including my grandmother say they would vote them out of office but the conversation always seems to end in something like, "there is nothing we can do" or "they are unbeatable so I don't even bother".


Right. And so they don't turn out. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. When I was younger and stupider I sometimes participated in the same folly.

Though it also means that if, perhaps, the redistricting initiative actually helps somewhat, then it might encourage more people to turn out and get a little positive feedback effect.

OTOH it *is* a liberal leaning state, no doubt about that. Just not nearly so much as the legislature. Gerrymandering is positive feedback too. A party with a small temporary majority come redistricting time can parlay it into a large permanent majority. That's why gerrymandering is fundamentally lethal to the whole idea of voting for public officials--it moves a candidate's real fight from the general election, where he must answer to everyone, down to the primary, where he only answers to his party and especially to the leadership. It means you can legally disenfranchise the entire population. It's an inherent flaw in our system, and one difficult to eliminate.

The leader of the Nevada McCain campaign was a Californian, and some of that came from him (the rest is my deduction, correct or not). He thought the very idea of gerrymandering was the opposite of representative government. He was right, but of course it's a pity that once in power it's hard for a party to remember that they knew this when out of power. :chris:

Even worse, I fear I'd even agree that we're down to the point where we have to play by the same rules, which makes me feel like I'm choosing between duty to country and duty to conscience. :eek: :chris:


What if we had that attitude about the British Empire in 1776?

Supposedly 97% of us did. :chris:

7x57

[anthonyca]

Right. And so they don't turn out. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. When I was younger and stupider I sometimes participated in the same folly.

Though it also means that if, perhaps, the redistricting initiative actually helps somewhat, then it might encourage more people to turn out and get a little positive feedback effect.

OTOH it *is* a liberal leaning state, no doubt about that. Just not nearly so much as the legislature. Gerrymandering is positive feedback too. A party with a small temporary majority come redistricting time can parlay it into a large permanent majority. That's why gerrymandering is fundamentally lethal to the whole idea of voting for public officials--it moves a candidate's real fight from the general election, where he must answer to everyone, down to the primary, where he only answers to his party and especially to the leadership. It means you can legally disenfranchise the entire population. It's an inherent flaw in our system, and one difficult to eliminate.

The leader of the Nevada McCain campaign was a Californian, and some of that came from him (the rest is my deduction, correct or not). He thought the very idea of gerrymandering was the opposite of representative government. He was right, but of course it's a pity that once in power it's hard for a party to remember that they knew this when out of power. :chris:

Even worse, I fear I'd even agree that we're down to the point where we have to play by the same rules, which makes me feel like I'm choosing between duty to country and duty to conscience. :eek: :chris:



Supposedly 97% of us did. :chris:

7x57

And people like the NRA and CGF are the other 3%. Lets direct our energy in fighting how we can make a difference. Spreading the word in a subtle and non confrontational way is part of it and the constitution is the heart of it, we need to keep it alive at all costs.

7x57 you are very intelligent and I really enjoy your posts. I understand what you mean and I am in some bit of denial about her being beatable but I can dream.

[Loner]

Devore is one of the few who have has been fervently against the tax increases that the other legislators passed earlier this year and was opposed to prop 1a. This could play into him winning as there is strong resentment of the current legislature.

[anthonyca]

Devore is one of the few who have has been fervently against the tax increases that the other legislators passed earlier this year and was opposed to prop 1a. This could play into him winning as there is strong resentment of the current legislature.

We have to play this kind of thing up in casual conversation with every day voters. If people would call radio stations and bring things like this up that would help too. Tell shooters about the 2nd amendment things.

[Sunwolf]

Given the "over reach" that is going on, it may not be so tough. Obama and the Democrats are scaring the hell out of people. Gangster tactics don't set well with freedom loving Americans, even some Democrats. The timing might be right.

I, for one, will not just lay down. Now is the time to start the fight. My family and I are going to attend the Freedom Rally in Tulare on the forth.

www.centralvalleyteaparty.com

What are you doing on the Forth? The greater the numbers the better. It's not just about taxes. It is being called a Freedom Rally for a reason.

Watch this video. Some may call the first scene fantasy, but it could be our future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4s3iqlQxvI

:79:


I`ll be there!

[Sgt Raven]

People say that, but the assertion seems to be based on the idea that there is no cost to balance the benefit of such a move. Do you think you will attract enough of these swing voters to more than make up for all the voters that simply won't show up at the polls because of this move?

The problem in California is gerrymandering, and to some extent nothing is soluble without including a fix for that. Whether the recent initiative actually fixes it is open to doubt, of course.

7x57

Gerrymandering doesn't count in state wide office. :rolleyes:

[glockwise2000]

Doesn't Boxer and Feinstein have cancers? :rofl2:

It seems that is the only way they won't run for the next Aristocratic election. Can someone do a Voodoo to them?

[7x57]

Gerrymandering doesn't count in state wide office. :rolleyes:

Read the other posts much?

7x57

[bulgron]

Very possibly, but don't forget that these are the people who supply the most manpower in the ground game. It's quite possible that we lost the last election to the fact that neither they nor the Libertarians liked McCain, and our turnout was *down*.

It could be said that McCain lost the last election for a lot a reasons. But at the end of the day, I blame the Bush administration which presided over the largest increase in the size of the federal government to that date, even as they presided over the largest increase in the deficit to that date. Between those things, which didn't sit well with conservatives, and issues surrounding the "war on terror", which didn't sit well with everyone else, huge segments of the political middle were looking for a change. And boy did they get it.

By the way, I've talked to a lot of people who claim that they didn't vote for McCain because Sarah Palin scared the hell out of them. So going MORE conservative (especially on social issues) isn't necessarily a great idea.


The news media would rather be flayed alive than admit it, but Obama's margin was so slender that if Republican turnout had been normal, McCain might have won.

Can you point to any reputable studies that indicate conservative turnout was actually low in the last election? As I said, above, I think Republicans lost the last election because they lost support from the American political middle -- which tends to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal (and are neither Democrat nor Republican). Neither of which were what Bush had given us, and so they decided to at least vote for socially liberal and hopefully an end to the middle eastern wars.

Anyway, that's my gut feel for what happened last year. With Obama doing alarming things fiscally, the political middle could very well swing right back around to the Republicans in 2010. But Republicans have to stay on message (fiscal conservative) and stay away from social issues if they want to shore up support in the middle.


Possibly they are shortsighted. But you are equally shortsighted if you don't plan based on who will turn out to knock on doors, man the phones, and get out the vote on election day.

You have a point here. However, I have to wonder how many people might be willing to volunteer for Republican campaigns if only those campaigns didn't involve people with social values that many find distasteful. I know I won't volunteer for Republican campaigns for this very reason. While I agree with conservatives on fiscal issues (when they deliver on this, which they don't always do), and on guns (again, when they bother to deliver on this), I disagree with them on a whole host of other issues ranging from gay marriage to the war on drugs to abortion to the patriot act.

There are many, many people in this country who see things in the same way as I do, yet neither political party is willing to make room for us. Republicans could, and I think probably should, given the way that the social wars have NOT gone in their favor. At least, that's true in this state.



Republicans that are demoralized because of the structural lockout of the legislature don't turn out as much, and so indirectly the legislative stranglehold does affect the statewide elections.

Republicans really need to start taking a longer, strategic view of things if they're ever going to gain traction in California again. This might mean showing up to vote for a "RINO" (I really hate that term) with nose firmly plugged. If they can't figure out how to appeal to voters from populated centers enough to win elections, then this state will be forever a one-party state. And I DO NOT want to live under a political regime like they have in Illinois. So I hope Republicans figure out how to sell a message that will resonate with a majority of Californians. Because if they can't do that, this state is screwed no matter what anyone does.

[Sgt Raven]

It could be said that McCain lost the last election for a lot a reasons.....snip...........

By the way, I've talked to a lot of people who claim that they didn't vote for McCain because Sarah Palin scared the hell out of them. So going MORE conservative (especially on social issues) isn't necessarily a great idea.
.........snip.......................
Republicans really need to start taking a longer, strategic view of things if they're ever going to gain traction in California again. This might mean showing up to vote for a "RINO" (I really hate that term) with nose firmly plugged. If they can't figure out how to appeal to voters from populated centers enough to win elections, then this state will be forever a one-party state. And I DO NOT want to live under a political regime like they have in Illinois. So I hope Republicans figure out how to sell a message that will resonate with a majority of Californians. Because if they can't do that, this state is screwed no matter what anyone does.

And I know a lot of people who only voted for the 'Manchurian Candidate' because Sarah Palin was on the ticket. ;)

[7x57]

But at the end of the day, I blame the Bush administration which presided over the largest increase in the size of the federal government to that date,


There is no doubt that the election was a referendum on George Bush. However the American people don't seem to vote based on smaller government (sadly) though a crucial demographic of conservatives might. That is why I believed the election was definitely lost the day the news of the bank failures broke--it was inevitably blamed on Bush (even though much of the problem had to do with mandates to fiscal irresponsibility pushed by the Democrats). Until then Obama ran far behind his own party and McCain ran ahead of his.


even as they presided over the largest increase in the deficit to that date. Between those things, which didn't sit well with conservatives,


It's possible that it has enough impact with the base to matter some, but I am not so sure. Ronald Reagan did the same, and he's a conservative icon.


and issues surrounding the "war on terror", which didn't sit well with everyone else,


Even that was largely media-driven. Obama is basically Bush II on much of what Bush was criticized for, but Obama is teflon-coated because, well, the media elected him.


By the way, I've talked to a lot of people who claim that they didn't vote for McCain because Sarah Palin scared the hell out of them. So going MORE conservative (especially on social issues) isn't necessarily a great idea.


And none of them spend a minute of their own time to work on a campaign--the profile of Palin-haters seems pretty clear on that. Anecdotally, the bus of people going from California to Nevada to campaign there was full of people who decided to volunteer basically because of her.


Can you point to any reputable studies that indicate conservative turnout was actually low in the last election?


Oh, fine, I checked my campaign links and here (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/06/report-08-turnout-same-or-only-slightly-higher-than-04/) is one I actually saved.


As I said, above, I think Republicans lost the last election because they lost support from the American political middle


Let's talk about the role of the middle.

The winning strategy in American elections is to go left or right to the base in the primary so someone will actually work for your campaign and back toward the center in the general election for enough independents to tip the scales. You can't avoid the first move because independents and moderates simply don't care enough to work on campaigns, and you can't avoid the second because you can't win with the base alone. Make either move wrong, and you don't get the delicate balance between base and swing voters. I'm sure students of elections can point to exceptions, but they aren't common enough to be worth betting on.


-- which tends to be fiscally conservative


I don't believe that at all. Libertarians, many social conservatives, yes. The moderates pretty much are the guys most easily bribed with other people's money. Money talks the most when you don't have a higher cause that really matters.


You have a point here. However, I have to wonder how many people might be willing to volunteer for Republican campaigns if only those campaigns didn't involve people with social values that many find distasteful.


Not enough for anyone to care about them. The buzz was that not enough people were turning out for McCain until he nominated Palin. Then the volunteers began to come out, but the smart money was that it was too late. Or so I recollect from the campaign.

Much of McCain's problem was that he's too moderate to attract either Libertarians or Social Conservatives. Far more of us on that bus were working against Obama than for McCain. Those working for someone invariably were there for and because of Sarah Palin. Including, BTW, most of the women, minorities, and people who had never worked for a campaign before.

I considered working for him as part of the Anybody But Obama ticket (I was originally on the Anybody But Hillary ticket, but then I heard Obama speak), then decided to do so because of Sarah Palin, then just about decided not to again because he supported the bailout. I finally chose to work for Supreme Court justices--I campaigned on a long-shot (after the bailout) campaign because I was very clear who Obama would nominate. I was happy enough with Palin but I'd have probably campaigned for a trained marmoset to avoid Obama nominating justices.

And yet, here we are. :mad:


I know I won't volunteer for Republican campaigns for this very reason.


Then you have little moral standing to lecture the Republicans, since you will not do what you counsel others to do. If you wish Social Conservatives to campaign for RINOs for strategic purposes, then you had better be prepared to show the way by working your heart out for Social Conservatives for the same strategic reasons, when they have a shot for district or other reasons.

Mostly Social Conservatives are quite well aware that plenty of Libertarians heartily wish they didn't exist, and that tends to sour the conversation when Libertarians want them to cooperate with something. Funny how existential threats don't make for good working alliances.


While I agree with conservatives on fiscal issues (when they deliver on this, which they don't always do), and on guns (again, when they bother to deliver on this),


The problems there are fundamentally that we've been electing Neocons. Neocons are big statists and don't care about those issues, though they will happily take votes from other, better conservatives because of those issues.


There are many, many people in this country who see things in the same way as I do, yet neither political party is willing to make room for us. Republicans could, and I think probably should, given the way that the social wars have NOT gone in their favor. At least, that's true in this state.


As long as you plan to bring enough people to create a new party, that works. I've heard plenty from Social Conservatives already about walking from the Republican party, for reasons similar to yours (getting nothing tangible on the issues they care about). Largely they would if they had an electable alternative. Your plan makes their loss certain. Can you replace them? We lost tons of Libertarians that way, and now their only function is to throw elections to the Democrats and then complain about it.

Here is the thing to understand about Social Conservatives. They work for and vote what they believe, not because they think it will score points with anyone. They support the Republican party because it appears rational, not because it is the Republican party. I do not say they can't be reasoned with, quite the opposite--they are rational enough to be consistent to their beliefs instead of a party.


Republicans really need to start taking a longer, strategic view of things if they're ever going to gain traction in California again. This might mean showing up to vote for a "RINO" (I really hate that term) with nose firmly plugged.


But you won't do that in turn if the candidate is Socially Conservative. Why would any of them make an agreement that would not, it appears, benefit them?


If they can't figure out how to appeal to voters from populated centers enough to win elections, then this state will be forever a one-party state. And I DO NOT want to live under a political regime like they have in Illinois.


But you dislike Social Conservatives as much as you do God-Emperor Daly, it seems.


So I hope Republicans figure out how to sell a message that will resonate with a majority of Californians. Because if they can't do that, this state is screwed no matter what anyone does.

The strong likelihood is that this state is screwed no matter what anyone does. :cool2:

I believe there is a strong chance that Libertarians and Social Conservatives will hang separately because they cannot find a way to hang together. It's fairly likely that this could be the end of the Republic, in fact. I kid not in the slightest.

However, part of my problem there is that I too live in California. Possibly back in America there may be some cultural memory that America was created by a combination of Social Conservatives and 18th century Liberals (i.e. Libertarian-ish types) and is more or less designed for them.

I believe that numberless wars have been lost because those with congruent interests would not cooperate (for the most hair-raising absurdity, consider the Siege of Jerusalem). Civilizations die that way, and so may California and perhaps even the American experiment in an alternative to the omnipotent state.

7x57

[bulgron]

I don't believe that at all. Libertarians, many social conservatives, yes. The moderates pretty much are the guys most easily bribed with other people's money. Money talks the most when you don't have a higher cause that really matters.

You and I must have a different definition of "moderate" then. My definition is someone who doesn't care enough about politics to get involved, mostly because they're too busy living their lives to bother. People like that are generally mostly interested in "getting ahead" in the job, not via taxes. If anything, they want lower taxes so they can keep more of their own money. But I don't know anyone that I would call a moderate who's walking around looking for handouts.

The people looking for handouts are almost always leftists (or drunks or both), in my experience.



Not enough for anyone to care about them. The buzz was that not enough people were turning out for McCain until he nominated Palin. Then the volunteers began to come out, but the smart money was that it was too late. Or so I recollect from the campaign.

Yes, I remember that. Palin saved McCain's campaign from dying an early death, but she might well have been the last nail in his campaign's coffin. That said, I have no actual proof that she was what finally sunk him, other than a gut feeling based on conversations with people that I've always considered politically moderate.


Much of McCain's problem was that he's too moderate to attract either Libertarians or Social Conservatives.

I disagree. McCain's main problem was that he is an old guy and people were afraid that he'd die and leave Palin in charge. Plus, he stopped being McCain and started changing his message to please the conservative base, which lead many moderates to think that he was going to turn into George Bush, v 2.0. At the end of the day, I think McCain lost because the Bush boat anchor was hanging around his neck and he couldn't get rid of it. That + his age + Palin + "the historic nature of Obama's campaign" is what did him in.

What I mean by all of that is I think a moderate conservative in a different election could easily win. It is therefore a mistake to believe that the only way a Republican can win going forward is by being as hard-core conservative as is possible.



Then you have little moral standing to lecture the Republicans, since you will not do what you counsel others to do.

MORALS!! When did morals come into this? This is politics, after all.

I'm talking strategy. And strategically, I see no point in campaigning for a Republican in California who is socially conservative, especially in the bay area. They just aren't going to win the election. It's a waste of time.

Besides, what I'm actually doing is counseling Republicans to GET OUT AND VOTE for moderate conservatives when they're on the ballot, even if that politician doesn't say all they want to hear on the social issues. After all, weren't you the one saying conservatives stayed home because McCain was too moderate?

And in this I'm on solid ground (if you want to talk morality) because I frequently hold my nose and vote for Republicans. In fact, over the last decade, that's all I've done for state offices.

So if I can go out of my way to vote for a politician that has some (but not all) positions that I find odious, then why can't conservatives? Or is it that they enjoy seeing SCOTUS nominees like Sotomayor?



If you wish Social Conservatives to campaign for RINOs for strategic purposes, then you had better be prepared to show the way by working your heart out for Social Conservatives for the same strategic reasons, when they have a shot for district or other reasons.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wanted Social Conservatives to campaign for RINOS. I'm pretty sure I never said that. What I want them to do is show up and vote for RINOS, when that's their only option.

In California, that is frequently the only option.


As long as you plan to bring enough people to create a new party, that works.

Well, I keep looking at those Tea Parties and wondering if they don't represent a nucleus of people who care first and foremost about fiscal matters, and are willing to let all the other noise slide to the back burner for the moment. They COULD grow into a new third party, especially if the Republican's are unable to recover from their recent political misfortunes in the next few election cycles.


I've heard plenty from Social Conservatives already about walking from the Republican party, for reasons similar to yours (getting nothing tangible on the issues they care about). Largely they would if they had an electable alternative. Your plan makes their loss certain. Can you replace them? We lost tons of Libertarians that way, and now their only function is to throw elections to the Democrats and then complain about it.

Why should Social Conservatives walk from the Republican Party? Don't they basically own the party? Certainly they seem to be firmly in control of the party's platform.

My plan, if you can call it that, involves convincing people that fiscal responsibility is more important than all the other social stuff. I'm pretty sure there are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who all agree that at this time that is probably true. So, yes, I think the Social Conservatives can potentially be replaced.

What it's going to take to show me right or wrong is for the Tea Parties to gain some solid leadership, and then grow into an actual political party. Given the somewhat decentralized nature of the Tea Parties, I don't know if that can or will happen. But it's going to be interesting to see what happens next.




But you won't do that in turn if the candidate is Socially Conservative. Why would any of them make an agreement that would not, it appears, benefit them?

Once again, I can and have voted for social conservatives. I won't work their campaigns, but I will at least get out and vote for them. I do this reluctantly, and with sorrow, but I do it because it is strategically the best option available to me at the moment.



But you dislike Social Conservatives as much as you do God-Emperor Daly, it seems.

You are reading a position into my words that isn't there. Just to clarify: I don't like the moral stance Social Conservatives take, but I can live with it. I won't work to enable it, but I can live with it. And I'll even reluctantly vote for it, given the horrific alternative.

God-Emporer Daly, however, is a tyrant and a thug and there's no way I could vote for him, must less live under his regime.


The strong likelihood is that this state is screwed no matter what anyone does. :cool2:

Once people get sick and tired of the state being broken fiscally, either the California Republican party will come to its senses and campaign based on fiscal issues, or a third party will spring up that has fiscal issues as it's sole focus. Once that day happens, the people of this state will begin to fix it. But until then, well, the headlines make interesting reading.

[Dirtbozz]

Once people get sick and tired of the state being broken fiscally, either the California Republican party will come to its senses and campaign based on fiscal issues, or a third party will spring up that has fiscal issues as it's sole focus. Once that day happens, the people of this state will begin to fix it. But until then, well, the headlines make interesting reading.

The coming melt down should do the trick. Things will hopefully turn for the better when the state "raises from the ashes". Our idiot Governor and the fools in the state assembly and senate are doing a good job of doing nothing to solve the spending problems that got California into this mess. It won't be long.

[Merc1138]

With as screwed up as this state is getting, even liberals might be willing to finally vote for someone else.

[Legasat]

Chuck who?

jim

I see all of these complicated theories and prognostications written.

I agree with Jim: Chuck Who?

[Regulus]

Chuck who?

jim
I see all of these complicated theories and prognostications written.

I agree with Jim: Chuck Who?

I understand what you and Jim are saying, but I am proud that he is my Assemblyman and would be more proud to have him as my State Senator.

About Chuck (http://www.chuckdevore.com/inner.asp?z=1)

We can all keep saying "Chuck who?" and at the end of the day, continue writing Barbara Boxer and tell her how much we disagree with her.

HTg4HvpSdr0

No Thanks. He has my moral and financial support, regardless of the outcome.

[Dirtbozz]

I see all of these complicated theories and prognostications written.

I agree with Jim: Chuck Who?

It will take someone, maybe not "Chuck", but someone to defeat Boxer. I don't care much who it is, long as that person is a Conservative freedom loving American that will help take this country off of it's current path towards Marxism/Socialism that the Obama, Pelosi, Reid team has us on. It will take a positive attitude on every ones part. The future of our children and grand children are at stake. These SOBs must be stopped!!

[FeuerFrei]

I always find myself surprised that fellow Californian peasants sometimes actually think that the political system here is going to ever let in a newcomer that has not been "blessed" by their party hierarchy. "Quid pro quo", "pay to play" IS reality here in this state.
Do you really think the politicians in Sacramento give a hairy rat what you say to them?
Do you write them? E-mail them? You are kidding yourself if you think they are listening.
The only things they listen to are their own internal polls and lobbyists that have cash and clout to get their attention. Hmmm... NRA is always a good choice and many more. You decide.
Sorry for the rant. Boxer/Feinstein are locked in until THEY decide to quit.
Californian political reality.
:King:

[Bugei]

I hope this is true, but from what I can tell the liberals around me aren't exactly angry at Obama & the Dems. Disappointed is the strongest word I might use, and some of them aren't even that. Some are still waiting patiently for Obama & the Dem majority to deliver.

I actually asked the Office Lib/Dem about how her guy was doing. She basically told me that if Obama is successful, it's all his doing. And if he isn't, it's all because of Bush.

I think people that made the decision to vote for Doctor Incredible (and he is! I don't find anything about him credible in the least!) aren't poor or enslaved enough yet to acknowledge that they have put is in a huge mess.

[Regulus]

I always find myself surprised that fellow Californian peasants sometimes actually think that the political system here is going to ever let in a newcomer that has not been "blessed" by their party hierarchy. "Quid pro quo", "pay to play" IS reality here in this state.
Do you really think the politicians in Sacramento give a hairy rat what you say to them?
Do you write them? E-mail them? You are kidding yourself if you think they are listening.
The only things they listen to are their own internal polls and lobbyists that have cash and clout to get their attention. Hmmm... NRA is always a good choice and many more. You decide.
Sorry for the rant. Boxer/Feinstein are locked in until THEY decide to quit.
Californian political reality.

Have always been a dedicated realist as well, but I would like to see an end to calling this representation:

[Politician] "So, <aide>, where do I stand on <blah> today?"
[Their Aide] "Well sir/ma'am... I MEAN SENATOR, today's polls show that voters support more <blah>."
[Press Conf] "Today, I officially support more <blah>, and I'll continue to WORK HARD for you!"

Carmen Trutanich's victory (albeit not a State position) should show that beating a pre-determined political candidate for office is not as impossible as you suggest.

Also, Boxer seems to be flubbing herself up, and defeating her does not seem unrealistic to me, whether it is Devore or someone else.

Perhaps (and I'm sure others will confirm) I am just ignorant about such things, but while I've lost confidence in our legislators/representatives, I still hold hope for our system.

[Maestro Pistolero]

California's imminent financial collapse should not be underestimated as a force for real power change in the mid terms. It's a vulnerability that should be exploited to it's fullest. Obama's campaign bloomed because of the inevitable, though perfectly-timed, suspiciously helpful financial collapse a few short weeks before the election.

No one payed attention to the fact that it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forced the issue of the doomed loans that literally tanked the mortgage market.

No one payed attention to the fact that it was McCain who, pounding his fist on a lectern two years prior, warned that the loan practices amounted to financial suicide. Inexplicably, not even McCain laid the blame where it belonged during the election.

Not even in the face of the oft-repeated mantra of the Obama campaign: "we can't take four more years of the same failed policies of the Bush Administration" did McCain EVER point out that there was a Democratic majority in the House and Senate for 3 and 4 years that was single-handedly responsible for drafting the financial policies that ruined the country's economy.

It's not that Bush is blameless, it's just that the President can only sign what the congress puts on his desk. And that congress had a Democratic majority for 87.5 percent of Bush's last term (averaging 3 and 4 years of majority rule in the respective houses over the 4 year term)

It was as if, at some point, McCain decided: I don't really even want this, so I am going to play it out, make a convincing show of it, and then let it go.

The point is, Obama won, in part, because:

1. Obama and the Democrats went nearly unchallenged in their bid to tie the country's troubles to Bush, and to simultaneously tie McCain to the Bush administration. It was as if Bush and McCain were the same person, which, of course, couldn't be further from the truth.

2. The national media dropped any remaining pretense of shame, impartiality, or journalistic integrity, and dove headfirst and naked into bed with the Obama campaign.

3. The miraculously, coincidental timing of the financial collapse essentially held a gun to the head of the American People, with the Obama campaign (with the national media conspirators) effectively taking ownership of the issue to slam dunk the election in the 11th hour.

We could do well to tear a page (or a chapter) from the Obama playbook. California is a financial victim of the failed policies of the liberal democrats. California now has the financial gun being held to it's collective head. The time for a political coupe couldn't be more ripe.

Will the Independents, Republicans, and Libertarians seize the opportunity to take ownership of these issues and position themselves as the medicine to recover and heal from years of failed democratic fiscal and social policy?

[Midian]

For starters, in 2010 vote all incumbents out of office. NONE of them get to keep their jobs.

Dump as many libs as possible, if that's even feasible in California. Set the stage for Barry The O to take a nice big fat fall in 2012 before too much damage is done.

[bulgron]

We could do well to tear a page (or a chapter) from the Obama playbook. California is a financial victim of the failed policies of the liberal democrats.

Haven't you heard? California's financial woes all stem from our Republican governor and an obstructionist Republican minority in the Assembly and Senate. If only those mean old Republicans were gone, gone, gone forever from the face of California politics, all would be puppies and kittens in this state and our financial coffers would overflow with silver and gold!

I hear this crap all the time from the liberals around me.

So long as there's even a remnant of a Republican party in this state, Democrats will blame it for everything. Sometimes, I wish the Republican party really would completely disappear from California, just so I could see who the Democrats would blame next for their hideously broken fiscal policies.

[Maestro Pistolero]

That would be a bold statement! Everybody drop out for a term, and let them smell their own excrement for awhile. I'll bet the following election would see some big changes.

[7x57]

You and I must have a different definition of "moderate" then. My definition is someone who doesn't care enough about politics to get involved,


Possibly we do. However we appear to agree on the lack of involvement, and unfortunately that drastically limits your influence. It appears to be a sad but true phenomenon that you don't win by having positions people prefer--you win by attracting people who will sacrifice personal time to campaign for you. And that's the best possibility--you can also win sometimes by having the money to hire people or the connections to get movers & shakers to volunteer their influence for you (but quite often the latter strategies fail when up against someone genuinely good at the first one).

Unfortunately, it appears to be a political reality that groundwork gets out the votes but positions do not. Probably because the very lack of passion you state also means they're quite likely to not vote at all. It just isn't at the top of their priority list on a very busy day.

Now contrast with the people doing groundwork in Nevada--I was amazed at how many of them had voted by mail precisely so they would be free to volunteer to get out the vote on election day. They were motivated to plan ahead in order to give up more time.

Each of their votes probably counted as ten or more in terms of their impact on the resuts.


But I don't know anyone that I would call a moderate who's walking around looking for handouts.

The people looking for handouts are almost always leftists (or drunks or both), in my experience.


If the handout comes with the label "government charity," that's often true. But that's not how you bribe the middle. You bribe the middle indirectly so they can preserve the illusion of independence, with things such as cheap gasoline, cheap home loans, and so on. You manipulate the markets on their behalf. You also play on fear--bribe them with promises to "do something" about crime, mortgage rates, unemployment.

Only amateurs try to bribe them with the direct means that succeed with the non-working class.


Yes, I remember that. Palin saved McCain's campaign from dying an early death, but she might well have been the last nail in his campaign's coffin. That said, I have no actual proof that she was what finally sunk him, other than a gut feeling based on conversations with people that I've always considered politically moderate.


It sounds to me that you believe the lies about Palin from the same media you wouldn't listen to for a minute about guns.


I disagree. McCain's main problem was that he is an old guy and people were afraid that he'd die and leave Palin in charge.


Oddly enough, that was an oft expressed hope of the volunteers--over and over again the main interest of many was in the VP as a stepping-stone to the oval office, after McCain's term if his health lasted. Some said he was old enough they hoped for a single term, then Palin.

In any event, you might as well know that Sarah Palin might as well be my cousin, and I will treat such objections in the same way as I would treat a statement about people being afraid the top of the ticket would die and leave a black VP in charge. I won't politely ignore the blood libel aimed at her.

Neither should you, given that she was probably the most pro-gun American candidate since before the slow demonization of the armed free citizen began.


Plus, he stopped being McCain and started changing his message to please the conservative base,


Given that he's not good on guns and that base is, you ought to be pleased about that.


which lead many moderates to think that he was going to turn into George Bush, v 2.0. At the end of the day, I think McCain lost because the Bush boat anchor was hanging around his neck and he couldn't get rid of it.


I agree with the first part, but you miss the situation. McCain was always a long shot, but he was more electable precisely because he's not really a normal conservative. Because the election was a confidence vote on the Bush presidency, it was necessary to run the one candidate who was most difficult to tar with th "Bush II" brush. That was McCain, because of his well-known friction with his own party. Was it enough? Not after the banking scandal. Before that, the odds were against him but not hopeless.

It's similar to why Churchill became PM. After the invasion of Poland, pretty much everyone in the government was associated with a suddenly radioactive policy. Except, it turns out, for the guy who had spent the interwar years destroying his career with hawkish sentiments about a rearming Germany and so on and so forth. In other words, the guy with the cigar was the one man immune to charges of having helped create the mess.

To a far lesser degree, that is why the party had to run a candidate it doesn't like very well. It was harder to make charges of being Bush's lapdog stick on McCain than the others. I supported McCain in the primary based on that logic, and I still believe I was right. If I were just supporting the person I wanted in office the most, I'd have supported Huckabee (who is both more Libertarian and more Socially Conservative than McCain, which is a double win in my book). If I were picking more electable candidates, in another year I'm not sure who it would have been but it wouldn't have been McCain.


That + his age + Palin + "the historic nature of Obama's campaign" is what did him in.


Certainly the blatantly racist vote for Obama was a major factor, possibly also necessary for a win. Oddly enough, another common sentiment among the ground-pounder volunteers was that his race was the only reason to vote for him. They appreciated that, but not enough to vote for the worst candidate on the issues we've had for a long time.

Mostly because they were not as racist as the Left, but I digress.


What I mean by all of that is I think a moderate conservative in a different election could easily win. It is therefore a mistake to believe that the only way a Republican can win going forward is by being as hard-core conservative as is possible.


If we're still talking about California, you're missing the significance of the way state politics has moved the decisive election from the general election to the primary. That means that there is no longer as much need to appeal to the swing voters--the purpose of gerrymandering is precisely to eliminate them as a factor, after all. You draw the districts with enough margin of victory to make them irrelevant. So the dynamic changes from needing to not go so far to the base that you can't run back up the middle to really only needing to appeal to the party machinery and the base. It destroys the idea of accountability to and representation of people who may not be a very good fit for your views.


MORALS!! When did morals come into this? This is politics, after all.


"Moral authority" isn't the same as morals--older meaning for "moral," I think. It means being able to exercise suasion from a high ground recognized by your opponents and having the standing to get people to listen when they'd rather not. It's a useful thing to have when doing what you want to do, tell a group that they have misapprehended their true interests and that they should do something that goes against their current inclinations.

It's totally practical.


I'm talking strategy. And strategically, I see no point in campaigning for a Republican in California who is socially conservative, especially in the bay area. They just aren't going to win the election. It's a waste of time.


I did stipulate electable, and in that situation they are probably not. What about a Social Conservative in some county north of Redding, or maybe OC (not sure where the real swing districts are, and of course the purpose of gerrymandering is to avoid creating swing districts in the first place).


Besides, what I'm actually doing is counseling Republicans to GET OUT AND VOTE for moderate conservatives when they're on the ballot, even if that politician doesn't say all they want to hear on the social issues. After all, weren't you the one saying conservatives stayed home because McCain was too moderate?


Yes, and I agree it's good advice in may cases. Wouldn't it be more effective to have the credibility to be able to say "I was out campaigning for your guy last year because I wanted to help beef up the Republican caucus, even though frankly I didn't like his platform. Now you come help me elect my guy, because your guy simply can't win and if you don't it will add another name in the "D" column."

That's moral authority--it means you can say "I walked the way I talked, you join me." That's all. Nothing profound, but I think you misunderstood the point.


And in this I'm on solid ground (if you want to talk morality) because I frequently hold my nose and vote for Republicans. In fact, over the last decade, that's all I've done for state offices.


Then perhaps we are furiously agreeing on that point.

Looks like this is getting so wordy my post is going to have to be cut off at this point--is this productive enough to post the second half, or are we more just venting? Venting is sometimes a good thing, but I don't know that we need to do too much of it here unless it's venting about oppressive gun laws.

7x57

[bulgron]

It sounds to me that you believe the lies about Palin from the same media you wouldn't listen to for a minute about guns.

We're having trouble communicating here. Somehow, my analysis of some moderates' perception of Palin is being confused with my own personal opinion of Palin. I actually found a lot to like about her, even if there were things in her social policies that I don't like. But, as is the case with many social conservatives, my concerns about her social stances were not enough to get me to vote for liberal democrats.

That said, from conversations with other moderates, it appears that there is a population of political moderates who did change their vote from McCain to Obama just because of their dislike for Palin's social stances.


I won't politely ignore the blood libel aimed at her.

Neither should you, given that she was probably the most pro-gun American candidate since before the slow demonization of the armed free citizen began.

Does it make you feel better to know that a few (apparently not very good) friendships of mine ended in the last election because of my vigorous defense of McCain/Palin in the face of overwhelming liberal propaganda? There were people who believed me a racist for supporting McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden, and said so to my face. I took the high road there and walked out and never went back.

Just be aware that because I can comprehend the political positions of the different sub-cultures surrounding me, and can explain those positions to one extent or another, that does not mean that I agree with those positions. In other words, you should stop reading things into my words that are not there.


If we're still talking about California, you're missing the significance of the way state politics has moved the decisive election from the general election to the primary. That means that there is no longer as much need to appeal to the swing voters--the purpose of gerrymandering is precisely to eliminate them as a factor, after all.

Always good to know that I'm completely irrelevant, politically speaking.

Tell me again why I should give either political party the time of day? I mean, until gerrymandering gets fixed, that is.

You've convinced me that I'm disenfranchised. Possibly the best thing for me to do is to throw my time and energy into getting the frack out of this state so I can go somewhere where gerrymandering doesn't disenfranchise the political middle.

[lioneaglegriffin]

these post are too long i can't read them. I have this disorder that turns me off of really long posts on subjects i mildly care about.

[lioneaglegriffin]

OT tho, he's better than in comparison to many Republicans in this state.

[7x57]

We're having trouble communicating here. Somehow, my analysis of some moderates' perception of Palin is being confused with my own personal opinion of Palin.


Fair enough. Then I'll simply say that I think the claim that she was an albatross was the message of a media that was screaming terrified of her, and the reason she terrifies them is that she both presses every Anti-American button they have and reveals certain deep weaknesses in their position. The only Liberal who gets that is Paglia.

McCain as McCain couldn't win because he couldn't get the base even if that was irrational (I'm not saying it wasn't), and so Palin was a rational gamble to make. And if he is going down anyway, I'm quite happy for him to have given her more name recognition.


That said, from conversations with other moderates, it appears that there is a population of political moderates who did change their vote from McCain to Obama just because of their dislike for Palin's social stances.


Agreed, my only point is that you don't balance that against how many people came over because of her, and how many of those were people willing to man the trenches. Those who left over here don't seem to have been willing to work anyway.

My concern is that, mostly due to the absolutely visceral, irrational, incomprehending animal hatred of the media for her, she is likely to become the "Hillary" of the Republicans. Popular with many, but quite polarizing and with a limited ability to draw outside.

I have chosen never again to use any media that participated in the symbolic political gang-rape, but that's another issue. The circus around her quite convinced me that the left is dangerous and will use violence when able to. But she might as well be my cousin, so it wouldn't be much different for them to just burn a cross on my lawn and make their intentions clear that way.

If made king of the World for a day, nothing in the world could give me as much pleasure as making her President just to watch those bigoted people suffer.


Does it make you feel better to know that a few (apparently not very good) friendships of mine ended in the last election because of my vigorous defense of McCain/Palin in the face of overwhelming liberal propaganda?


Since the media treatment of her shows they do not believe I have a right to exist, yes, I personally appreciate it beyond any political value.

Especially since Palin more authentically reflects the actual, real-world Social Conservatives that are apparently invisible to everyone else than just about any candidate I can recall. The Western ones, at least--she's a normal Western woman written a bit larger than life (partly out of her own political instincts, partly because that's what the media did in the process of attempting to gang-rape her symbolically as a warning to others like her to never be involved in politics). Huckabee, whom I like and admire more than Palin as a speaker, is perhaps more of a Southern or Bible-belt personality and somewhat more of a conventional politician than Palin.


Just be aware that because I can comprehend the political positions of the different sub-cultures surrounding me, and can explain those positions to one extent or another,


Apparently it isn't clear to me when you're channeling. Sorry about that.


Always good to know that I'm completely irrelevant, politically speaking.


Think how I feel to have to tell you that neither of us are enfranchised in California.


Tell me again why I should give either political party the time of day? I mean, until gerrymandering gets fixed, that is.


Beats me. Personal honor? Avoidance of complicity in the dismantling of America? Preventing the Democratic majority from total unchecked domination? Satisfaction that you pursued "all lawful means"? Work with me here, I'm trying my best....


You've convinced me that I'm disenfranchised. Possibly the best thing for me to do is to throw my time and energy into getting the frack out of this state so I can go somewhere where gerrymandering doesn't disenfranchise the political middle.

Possibly; perhaps enough people will do that that there will be a voluntary Ethnic Cleansing in America and we will end up with blocks of states that have no reason to be in union and no common interests or shared values at all. I hate to be that pessimistic, but that's where the culture war is going.

It took me a while to realize that as bad as that is, there could be an even worse endgame.

7x57

[radioman]

A turd in a swimming pool would be better then Boxer.

[dexter9659]

He is not Boxer: hence I will vote for him... twice.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Boxer is an idiot, and everyone knows it. Neither is Palin an intellectual giant, but at least Palin has a rudder in the water, and has an authenticity, that Boxer couldn't contrive in a million years.

Palin's career unfortunately skipped a step or two on the way into the national limelight. She needed a good year of preparation. The media treatment of her was, and is a national embarrassment.

Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric played gotcha while Biden gaffed his way through the free ride that the networks laid out in front of him. And I don't recall a single reporter taking Obama to task with any truly vetting questions. I get nauseous just thinking about it. If i could avoid it, I wouldn't buy a single product or service advertised on the major networks.

[7x57]

Neither is Palin an intellectual giant,


Objectively, she is probably smarter than the average politician--though that comes close to damning with faint praise. "Stupid," for the media, is a term of abuse you aim at Republicans. They aren't actually capable of using it for anything else. They remember that the way you got cred in college was being "one of the smart ones," i.e. agreeing with the academic dogma, and they simply apply it for the rest of their lives. It never has any connection to reality, because it's a meme; someone looked once and the average measured IQ of our Republican presidents is actually higher than that of our Democratic presidents for example

That's reasoning a priori--I don't know what her academic record or IQ or anything are. I don't care all that much, however--intelligence is a poor predictor of political ability or statesmanship, possibly even negatively correlated. The most educated theorists of recent times were probably the extremely smart Marxist leaders, and they did us nothing good.

A very smart man once said he'd rather be ruled by the first two thousand names in the Boston phone book than the two thousand members of the Harvard faculty.

He was right. God save us from intellectual giants.


Palin's career unfortunately skipped a step or two on the way into the national limelight. She needed a good year of preparation.


This is quite true. McCain was a fighter pilot, and decided to take a calculated risk one more time. I'm only concerned that ultimately it will be career limiting for her, but she's a big girl and said "yes" with her eyes open.

To be quite honest, she came up to speed so fast that I think a more calculated entry into national politics could have been handled in a way that she'd have cut to ribbons anyone who tried to patronize her. However smart or dumb you think she is, she's certainly smarter than any three average reporters. But that couldn't be done in McCain's timeframe.

7x57

[Maestro Pistolero]

. . . I think a more calculated entry into national politics could have been handled in a way that she'd have been cut to ribbons anyone who tried to patronize her . . .

Pretty sure you meant it like that. I agree. She also has a charisma that plays very well on camera, too. Not an easy trait to find, and one that can't be conjured, really. You either have it or you don't.

I wouldn't count her out. She does need to transcend the somewhat ugly foray into a graceful respectability, and that will just take a little time. Having any chips on her shoulder won't serve her well. It was initially her accessibility and approachability that both added to her appeal and made her vulnerable to the sharks. Keeping those qualities while fending off attacks will be a primary challenge.

The good thing, going forward, is that most of the skeletons have been let out of the closet, and sent to the boneyard. The opposition will have to send new teams of scavengers north for a new hunt.

[7x57]

Pretty sure you meant it like that.


Every writer needs a good editor. :D


I agree. She also has a charisma that plays very well on camera, too. Not an easy trait to find, and one that can't be conjured, really. You either have it or you don't.


She does, but it is a bipolar charisma. The left has a visceral revulsion to it, more or less for the same reason many others really respond to it. It's amazing, you can watch it take effect before there has even been time to process what she said. It's at a below-rational level. Essentially, she embodies everything that they intend to leave in the dustbin of history. Much worse, she's too self-confident to defer to her "betters," and there is almost nothing an aristocrat hates more than lack of deference. It all comes through in the body language.

I have a thesis that says you can rely on the left doing and being every single thing they profess to hate, and I think they hate even her accent. She has a Western accent, and "decent people" who go to *good* universities start with a different accent and move even further away as they imitate the language around them. She speaks in a way that would not make you look like an intruder in a nice small-town cafe. That means she didn't get the right indoctrination, and worse she doesn't even feel a sense of inferiority that she didn't. That threatens the self-image and worldview, and that can't ever be forgiven.

Essentially, she pushes so many buttons that reactions to her tell me precisely what people think about my ancestors.

I spent some time during the campaign trying to watch and decode reporter's reactions to her. It's enlightening, and sickening.


I wouldn't count her out. She does need to transcend the somewhat ugly foray into a graceful respectability, and that will just take a little time.


Unfortunately, I believe that the left has elevated their image of her to a matter of dogma, and nothing will change it. That wouldn't matter except that they control the media, which therefore pushes that image to swing voters. That may be a drastically limiting effect.

That said, Jindal/Palin is certainly a dream ticket. :43:


The good thing, going forward, is that most of the skeletons have been let out of the closet, and sent to the boneyard. The opposition will have to send new teams of scavengers north for a new hunt.

If there were any rationality to her coverage, that would be true. I fear there isn't. They hate her in a way that transcends reason.

7x57

[Maestro Pistolero]

That said, Jindal/Palin is certainly a dream ticket.

I hope your joking. Have you heard him speak? Nah, your joking.

[7x57]

I hope your joking. Have you heard him speak? Nah, your joking.

I'm mostly talking about disrupting other people's stereotypes and assumptions. In fact I have not heard him personally and can't say what kind of candidate he is. However, he belongs to one of the left's protected classes, and they really hate it when the casting for the enemy doesn't follow their guidelines.

Mostly, I just like to pour sand in their gears. :43:

7x57

[Maestro Pistolero]

However, he belongs to one of the left's protected classes, and they really hate it when the casting for the enemy doesn't follow their guidelines.

Point taken. But if Palin needed preparation, this guy needs a makeover. I can't remember the occasion, but he was the designated speaker to give the Republican response to a Democratic speech, might have been the inauguration, or a debate, but in any case, not knowing who was speaking, I found it to be truly awful. Bad syntax, poorly formed ideas, repeated himself a lot. . . not even first draft material. I was shocked to find out at the end it was Jindal.

[7x57]

I was shocked to find out at the end it was Jindal.

I do seem to recall hearing a sentence or two of some speech, but I can't recall anything about it. You do stir a vague memory of thinking his voice wasn't very impressive, but I could be confusing it with someone else. His still photos aren't impressive, but then I'm no judge. I always think Obama looks and sounds like an earnest but clueless freshman, and I thought W was a fairly poor and unimpressive speaker as well. Survey says others don't agree....

Speaking isn't everything: The Rudy is a dynamite speaker, but I don't want to have to choose between him and another Democratic catastrophe. But it's certainly something.

7x57

[Maestro Pistolero]

Speaking isn't everything

No, but it helps, especially up against silver-tongue devils.

[Dirtbozz]

Point taken. But if Palin needed preparation, this guy needs a makeover. I can't remember the occasion, but he was the designated speaker to give the Republican response to a Democratic speech, might have been the inauguration, or a debate, but in any case, not knowing who was speaking, I found it to be truly awful. Bad syntax, poorly formed ideas, repeated himself a lot. . . not even first draft material. I was shocked to find out at the end it was Jindal.

It is unfortunate that a candidates "presence" is so important. Obama is an articulate speaker (or at least his tele-prompter is) and a lot of people love to hear him speak. Personally I can't stand the sound of his voice because I know he is lying with every word.

Bobby Jindal appears to be an honest sensible Conservative. It is unfortunate that his way of speaking, etc. will disqualify him. He is low on experience, but that is a good thing, to my way of thinking. He would probably make one hell of a President. But more electable types will come along when the 2012 election cycle goes into full swing. If it is a North Eastern moderate type, we're toast. All we need is another McCain.

[nick]

and there is almost nothing an aristocrat hates more than lack of deference.

7x57

Ah, but you're insulting proper aristocrats. What you're describing is wannabe aristocrats not properly brought up to be one, and not having the ability to become one on merit. Basically, people trying to be what they are not and cannot be. Kind of like our titled Senator Boxer.

Just setting this little matter straight :)

[7x57]

Ah, but you're insulting proper aristocrats. What you're describing is wannabe aristocrats not properly brought up to be one, and not having the ability to become one on merit. Basically, people trying to be what they are not and cannot be. Kind of like our titled Senator Boxer.

Just setting this little matter straight :)

I shall accept your authority on this matter. ;)

There is something to what you say. For example, most egotists are awful to be around, but it usually isn't recognized that the reason is actually their residual self-doubt that makes them driven to prove their superiority and destroy possible rivals. I have met a couple of egotists on a scale most of us never meet--the late great Murray Gell-Mann particularly. His ego had it's own event horizon, so to speak. But he was not irritating at all, and the reason was that he was a perfect egotist. He really didn't have any self-doubt as to his greatness, so if you didn't notice that it simply didn't matter to him. Why should he care about your mistake?

So by analogy I take your point that a real aristocrat is too perfect in his superiority and confidence to really care if a lesser person simply fails to recognize their intrinsic quality.

I guess that's all fine as long as it's understood that over here we shoot at titled nobility just to see if their blood runs as blue as everyone says. ;)

7x57

[nick]

I guess that's all fine as long as it's understood that over here we shoot at titled nobility just to see if their blood runs as blue as everyone says. ;)

7x57

As well we should, provided we mostly include the wannabes in this. Titled nobility did help us in establishing this country, and many members of it settled down here to become citizens.

It's the homegrown wannabes that constitute a problem.

A bit off-topic, it only runs blue if they aren't tanned and come from way up North :)

[7x57]

As well we should, provided we mostly include the wannabes in this.


Admittedly the genuine article is a purely theoretical threat, whereas the wannabees are a clear and present danger....


Titled nobility did help us in establishing this country, and many members of it settled down here to become citizens.


There was that Marquis fellow....


A bit off-topic, it only runs blue if they aren't tanned and come from way up North :)

But I won't know if that's uniformly true unless I keep taking data, will I? It's for the sake of science! :43:

7x57

[nick]

But I won't know if that's uniformly true unless I keep taking data, will I? It's for the sake of science! :43:

7x57

One article of proper aristocratic upbringing might be of interest to you on your quest for science - such upbringing usually involves some sort of martial training, aristocracy usually appearing out of the obligation of military service and all :)

Which is another thing wannabes often lack, for they generally come from a different tradition. It was a sad day when the British Crown began knighting singers, dancers, and actors...

[Don'tBlink]

You know, I can program in Forth, and I can Go Forth, but that's different than the Fourth. :D

Wow 7 X 57, that's certainly impressive. I mean, how does one read the postings of another, so accurately, with ones literary nose angled so far skyward? Pretty soon you are going to be slumped over at the keyboard, sighing, and asking people to call you senator instead of ma'am.

A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends
--Balthadsar Gracian

[7x57]

One article of proper aristocratic upbringing might be of interest to you on your quest for science - such upbringing usually involves some sort of martial training, aristocracy usually appearing out of the obligation of military service and all :)

Which is another thing wannabes often lack, for they generally come from a different tradition. It was a sad day when the British Crown began knighting singers, dancers, and actors...

Sad day? Not at all. It neatly solves the problem you pointed out in your first paragraph, that real aristocrats tend to shoot back competently and otherwise sell their lives dearly. I think it's obvious that someone realized that the only solution that doesn't ruin the sport value is to knight people whose idea of resistance is holding up a sign. They're like stocked trout! :D

7x57

[7x57]

Wow 7 X 57, that's certainly impressive. I mean, how does one read the postings of another, so accurately, with ones literary nose angled so far skyward?


The fact that you regard noticing that as requiring impressive accuracy may shed new light on the problem. :rolleyes:


Pretty soon you are going to be slumped over at the keyboard, sighing, and asking people to call you senator instead of ma'am.


Do you dare suggest that senators are literate? :chris:

In any case, I try to avoid the sorts of websites that lead to people slumping over their keyboard and sighing, so I will have to defer to your expertise. :eek:

7x57

[cousinkix1953]

The problem is, I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence that either Boxer or Feinstein are beatable in this state.

7x57
They aren't; unless you put some kind of GOP celebrity on the ticket. Ordinary Republicans are not Ronald Reagan or even an Arnold Schwarzenegger. Most of them don't have deep pockets. They can't get enough (celebrity obsessed votes) from the public which pays too much attention to the HOLLYWOOD crowd.

Feinstein's biggest enemy might be her old age. She's 78+ years old from what I heard awhile back...

[nick]

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. There're lots of pissed off people in this state. It may not amount to much, but the prospect of a non-Democrat non-Feinstein/Boxer Senator from CA is too hard to pass by, even if the hope is, at best, forlorn. I say non-Democrat because I seriously doubt there'll be a non-liberal non-anti-gun Democrat nominee. For that matter, a Republican or third-party nominee with any shot at being elected would probably be quite liberal, too. I doubt he/she'd be worse than the current duo though. And that new senator won't have their seniority. Frankly, I don't want anyone from CA with seniority.

[cousinkix1953]

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. There're lots of pissed off people in this state. It may not amount to much, but the prospect of a non-Democrat non-Feinstein/Boxer Senator from CA is too hard to pass by, even if the hope is, at best, forlorn. I say non-Democrat because I seriously doubt there'll be a non-liberal non-anti-gun Democrat nominee. For that matter, a Republican or third-party nominee with any shot at being elected would probably be quite liberal, too. I doubt he/she'd be worse than the current duo though. And that new senator won't have their seniority. Frankly, I don't want anyone from CA with seniority.
Dianne Feinstein is on the Judiciary Committee! We are f-cked if she ever comes the chairwoman. The war on drugs, the Patriot Act and those gun laws are bad enough already...

[Sunwolf]

My vote is going to Chuck.

[7x57]

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Of course not, but it's tough to be realistic to think how bad things are and not lose heart. I guess I was pretty downbeat in the "why should I try" discussion. So here is some motivation, albeit of a rather stern sort: That's my mood today.

Anyway, working with your theme that sometimes you are obliged to fight regardless of the probable outcome:


If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, You will come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish, than to live as slaves.



Courage has got to be harder, heart the stouter, spirit the sterner, as our strength weakens. Here lies our lord, cut to pieces, our best man in the dust. If anyone thinks of leaving this battle, he can howl forever.



GO TELL THE SPARTANS PASSERBY,
THAT HERE OBEDIENT TO THEIR LAWS WE LIE


So what are you all planning to do for the 2010 election? Will Churchill and Simonides respect it?

7x57

[Sunwolf]

http://s933.photobucket.com/albums/ad174/Sunwolf_2009/
Tea party Tulare.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Hey Seven by Five-Seven,
Interesting that we had that whole Palin discussion a day before she dropped the bomb, eh?

She's either just truly sick of the time and money drain from all the bogus ethics charges (all 15 of which have been dropped) or she's got big plans that need big preparation. Or both, I suppose.

She really needs to borrow Obama's TelePrompTer, though. The woman does ramble on a bit. She may know when to "pass the ball for the good of the team", but Todd or someone needs to tell her when to pass the microphone. Oh, well, nothing 6 months of charm school couldn't remedy. WHAT she says beats the hell out of HOW she says it.

Any thoughts? Strategic move, or "screw this, I'm going elk hunting"?

[PonchoTA]

Back to the OP, here's some info on the candidate:

http://www.chuckdevore.com/

From his site on the issues:

Taxes and freedom

January 4, 2009

Taxes are linked to freedom in three ways.

First, taxes, however necessary, are a claim upon your time by the government. The higher the tax rate, the more of your time you must spend working for the government. In this, one can also make an argument that progressive taxes are unfair, insofar as they result in some people spending more time to complete their obligation to government than others. This is one reason why a flat tax with a simplified tax code holds some attraction.

The second threat to your liberty from high taxes comes in the form of the huge sums of money that enables large government – a government that appears increasingly unaware of its purpose: to “secure” our “unalienable Rights” including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Lastly, burdensome taxes and heavy regulations serve to slow the economy, preventing job creation, reducing wealth, and stifling innovation. When people have good jobs, material sufficiency, and are free to create, the world is better off. High taxes in the name of “fairness” may make some feel good, but in truth, such policies simply make us all just suffer together.


The $86 trillion problem

December 28, 2008

Our national politicians have not leveled with us about a very big problem. Unfortunately, this includes California Senator Barbara Boxer.

The problem? Looming fiscal disaster due to an $86 trillion unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare. This debt equals $286,000 for every person in America.

It’s an obligation that threatens to reduce Americans to economic servitude as they are forced to fork over unsustainable amounts of their income to support government obligations.

Democrats like Barbara Boxer have suggested massive tax increases to pay for this obligation. Such tax increases would slow the economy making all of America the poorer for it.

Instead of reducing us to economic servitude by paying a larger percentage of our shrinking income to pay this $86 trillion debt, we need to take a different path, a path that plays into America’s strengths in hard work and entrepreneurship. Instead of increases taxes, we should reduce our tax burden to double our long-term economic growth rate to the 5-6 percent range. We can do this by attracting fresh capital from all over the world to invest in automating U.S. manufacturing. Modern automation will allow us to compete with the Chinese and return manufacturing jobs to America – and grow the economy enough to make good on the $86 trillion in promises we’ve made to America’s future retirees.

http://chuckdevore.onlinecampaignstore.com/uploads/products/detail/prod.2362.jpg

I like him! Let's get him elected!! :thumbsup:

ETA: I just contributed to his campaign, large. Need much more to counter the Hollywood elite he's up against (Ted Danson, Robert Redford and Mary Steenburgen just lent their voice in support of the evil *****. Shame, I liked Ted too, no more.) :(

.

[7x57]

Hey Seven by Five-Seven,
Interesting that we had that whole Palin discussion a day before she dropped the bomb, eh?


I blame us for precipitating it. :TFH:


Any thoughts? Strategic move, or "screw this, I'm going elk hunting"?

I don't know. She's a bit more unpredictable than your average political hack, and frankly it's possible she really did decide it isn't worth it. But she was ambitious enough to run for governor and win, so I wouldn't bet either way.

7x57

[grnt]

Chuck Devore, served in military, met him, good guy. No on taxes. He didn't betray us like the other wanna be Republicans.

[7x57]

I like him! Let's get him elected!! :thumbsup:


Fine. So far, I do to. But this is war, not ideological purity. Is he electable? In California?!? Or, better asked, is he too long a shot to be an efficient place to invest effort?

7x57

[obeygiant]

So far I have to say that I like this guy as well. This is from an email he sent out recently.

Watch our new video on Barbara Boxer and Dr. Evil. I promise, you'll enjoy it:
What is it about liberals and the military? Why are liberals uncomfortable with the military? Why do some liberals apparently despise our military? Is it because the armed services remind them that not every international dispute can be solved with soothing words uttered by a diplomat? Is it because they view military expenditures as taking money away from greater health and welfare spending?

The latest liberal-military confrontation occurred in a he aring room on Capitol Hill on June 16, 2009 when Brigadier General Michael Walsh called California's junior senator "Ma'am" – a perfectly acceptable sign of military respect to both a U.S. Senator or a senior female officer. What happened next was remarkable. Barbara Boxer immediately dressed down the general officer, saying, "I had a… You know… do me a favor, could you say 'Senator' instead of 'Ma'am' – it's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title so I'd appreciate it, yes thank you."

According to the U.S. Army's own guide to protocol, Members of the U.S. Senate should be verbally addressed as "Sir," "Ma'am" or "Senator." So, General Walsh was simply following longstanding tradition. Ironically, when addressing senior officers, with the exception of generals whom most junior officers and enlisted personnel will call "General," the most respectful form of address is "Sir" or "Ma'am" with use of the actual rank in address being reserved oftentimes in situations when the senior officer has not yet earned respect from an enlisted person, as in "Yes, Lieutenant!" as opposed to "Yes, Ma'am!"

Of course, this wasn't Barbara Boxer's first confrontation with the U.S. military – not by a long shot. Boxer cut her political teeth on the anti-Vietnam war protests around the Bay Area back in the day and never really changed her outlook on the uniformed defenders of the Constitution of the United States. Who can forget her confrontation with Ame rican hero Gen. David Petraeus back in 2007 when she called him a liar and then wrote a now laughable blog for the Huffington Post on September 14, 2007 which she headlined, "General Petraeus, Take Off the Rose-Colored Glasses" calling for an immediate end (read: "defeat") to the war in Iraq.

Perhaps it's time for the Barbara Boxer to have a new title: "Ex-Senator." If you are as offended as I am and would like to strip Barbara Boxer of her title please go to my website www.chuckdevore.com today and make a contribution to my campaign to unseat Barbara Boxer.

Thank You,
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore


IsGR83Imoto

[KylaGWolf]

Well the General calling her ma'am was a bit of a stretch since she doesn't have that much respect. LOL But seriously she needs to get a freaking grip.

[jkchan83]

So far I have to say that I like this guy as well. This is from an email he sent out recently.



IsGR83Imoto

That's a great video.

[grnt]

Any body is better than Feinstein or Boxer. You got 2 rich elitist liberals thinking they are better than anybody else.

[Shotgun Man]

Any body is better than Feinstein or Boxer. You got 2 rich elitist liberals thinking they are better than anybody else.

The question should be: Is Boxer defeatable?

I don't see that she is even with her missteps. So I likely would not contribute to her opponent, as it is an unwinnable proposition.

[jamesob]

The problem is, I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence that either Boxer or Feinstein are beatable in this state.

7x57actually they are more in danger of loosing their seats this year than any in the past. frankenstien has had issues with her hubby and the company that he works for and boxer has been in the hot seat lately also. they both have miserable approval ratings, so this may be the year we lose one or hopfully both.

[7x57]

actually they are more in danger of loosing their seats this year than any in the past.

I have my doubts about how realistic defeating one or both would be even with baggage. However, I still have to decide what I'm going to do against the Evil Empire for the 2010 election, and won't rule out deciding to support a long shot just because of the lifetime of incredible, deep, soul-satisfying joy I would feel to have personally helped to get rid of one of our Wicked Witches.

The long shot has to not be too long, however.

7x57

[cousinkix1953]

The question should be: Is Boxer defeatable?

I don't see that she is even with her missteps. So I likely would not contribute to her opponent, as it is an unwinnable proposition.
Right! The only Republican who can beat either one of those incumbent senators, is a wealthy movie star type, who can get enough cross over Democratic votes in this celebrity crazed state. Schwarzenegger would never been elected if he wasn't a rich and famous candidate with an established high profile...

[Werewolf1021]

Right! The only Republican who can beat either one of those incumbent senators, is a wealthy movie star type, who can get enough cross over Democratic votes in this celebrity crazed state. Schwarzenegger would never been elected if he wasn't a rich and famous candidate with an established high profile...

Clint Eastwood 2010?:D

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee287/USMCDEVILDOG1021/get-off-my-lawn.png

[nick]

Umm, did the guy just vote for the expansion of "school safety zones" from 1000' to 1500'? Given that it was 76-0... I just sent him an email asking this.

[7x57]

Clint Eastwood 2010?:D


I would vote for "Get off my lawn!" as a campaign slogan. It should nail down the "grumpy old man" vote anyway. With the aging of the population, maybe that's a decisive demographic!

7x57

[cousinkix1953]

Clint Eastwood 2010?:D

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee287/USMCDEVILDOG1021/get-off-my-lawn.png
Maybe; but he isn't running. We have two established anti-gun Republicans and a little known insurance commissioner running for governor whose 2A position is not clear...