Well, I guess that was my point. No, it was not a play of words at that time about Jerry Brown. It had nothing to do with Brown, at least not in any way I was aware of at the time. Perhaps in your peer group you added the political reference. In any event, it still boils down to the weakest of ad hominens.
It sounds like one of the reasons you disliked Jerry at the time was the takkeaways the public sector employees had to endure, and it is likely this will be some part of the remedy California needs to address this time around, and Jerry seems fated (again) to make the unpopular choices. That’s why I support him. He does what he thinks the state needs, not just pandering to specific interests.
Whitman seems just a tired retread of “I’m an outsider, and I’ll implement the tough (read: magical) solutions that only I can see” meme.
We just did it with Arnie, and the magical solutions didn’t appear this time around either. I actually think Arnie did better than I had expected as a neophyte.
Term limts, as noted upthread, are making our government less and less competent, rather than having the benefits promised by its supports.
Also, upthread you posted “But what I do not understand is how those of who lived in the state when Brown was gov can not remember what he was like. The state was glad when he went out of office.”
And yet he won the Democratic Primary for President in California in 1976. It might you who is misremembering, due to your antipathy for the man.
There’s nothing I hate more than ads covered with thick, goopy negativity.
I know. Doesn’t it squick you out?
blame spellcheck
I have the same problem. Too much of her personal wealth tossed into her campaign raises red flags for me. Big red flags.
Jesse Ventura made an interesting comment on the Brown/Whitman race. Something along the lines of… Any politician who spends more getting the job that they will earn during the job, is not honest.
Why is it a good idea to allow people to buy houses from their parents and continue paying property taxes about one third of what they’d be if the taxes were based on assessed value?
I can understand the concept of tax relief, but just allowing some people to pay absolutely absurdly low property taxes rates, but not others, just seems silly to me.
With a little luck, between Fiorina and Whitman both losing (I hope) maybe the absurdly rich will decide it’s not worth spending dumptrucks of money on not-sure things.
-Joe
OK, I didn’t like that idea either. But the general concept of Prop 13 was that your taxes should not increase becuase of a paper increase in the value of that house, that you should not be taxed out of your house. I agree with that concept.
Sure, that could happen. I’m betting on something involving “bigger dumptrucks” myself, though.
I do not believe he won the California Primary I may be wrong on this. But when he ran for the Senate he was badly beaten. the voters we tired of him.
I do not live in Oakland so I do not really know the answer to this question, may some one who lives there can say what he did to improve the city. When he moved to Oakland and ran for mayor the city lhad a lot of problems. When he left office by listening to the news they still have the same problems. People who live in Oakland is it better?
I do not like Brown because he promiced on thing when running and did the opposite. Been there done thaat got the “T” shirt and do not want another.
Ooh, you’ve come up with a new reason with no foundation! What was it that he ran on and didn’t deliver?
Latest poll results from Rasmussen.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state finds Brown with 50% of the vote to Whitman’s 44%. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate in the race, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
Were you in Calif when he was Gov?
How many years ago was that I do not remember. What I do remember was he was a major disapointment. And My wife still gives me a bad time for voting for him the first time. She gives me the bad time because of how bad of a job he did. Sorry I do not have total recall, and I did not write down his goof in my journal I whish I had. He fits my list of fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. I can not bring my self to vote for him.
What I do remember is that the State of Calif breathed a sigh of relief when he left office. Just as Calif with breath a sigh of rellief when our present gov leaves office.
If you respond please state if you were in the state last time he was gov and if you are glad you voted for him or not.
For myself, I’ve lived in California my whole life. Voted for him, will again. I’ve used Wikipedia to refresh my memory about a few things. Why don’t you try a little research, and see if you can back up your generalizations with a few specifics?
Yes, and I was glad I voted for him. I admit I thought his abortive run for Prez was a bit much, even tho I thought he was a pretty good Gov. His record is looking better and better today. I mean, Davis was worse than useless, and Arnie hasn’t managed to do much of anything, even tho I give him Kudos for trying.
Last night, at UCLA, Brown put forth some profound stupidity (scroll down for video):
Aside from him having no problem with illegals (:rolleyes:), and his disgusting stance of favoring financial aid and in-state tuition for them, part of his justification for doing this is: “we have enough wealth”. What state, country is he living in?
Oh, the one where he’ll straighten out the whole CA budget mess in a couple of months.
Moonbeam is back.
I hope Whitman platers this all over the airwaves from now to November 2.
Here’s how I am voting:
Gov:Brown
Lt Gov- Maldonado- to keep Brown on his feet, and because I don’t trust Newsome.
Secy- Bowen. Hands down best.
Attorney Gen-Cooley- better Law and Order record
Ins- Jones. No Pubbies in that office, pls!
State Board- Watson, the Libertarian. Why not?
Senator- Boxer.
19- Dude!
20- No way. Why the FUCK would we give the GOP half the votes here, they have like a third the Districts. GOP power grab.
21- yes
22- not sure
23-NO!!!
24-Yes, I think
25- yes
26- No
27- hmmmm
DrDeth - what’s your reasoning for your votes on #23 and #24?
23 is bogus. It is made to sound like we’re going to hold off a bit on the new air pollution law until the economy recovers. Then they set a unemployment goal of 5% for a whole year, which hasn’t occured for a fucking long time, and is a unreasonable goal. Take a look at the graph on page40 of the Voters guide and you’ll see that Unemployment is almost never that low. It’s purely a deceptive attempt by a couple of Texas Oil companies- who are gross polluters- to exempt themselves more or less forever.
24 attempts to repeal a number of business tax handouts passed in order to get a compromise through. Some are not so bad, some are pork-like. So, I am thinking Yes, but I am not convinced.
I’m not sure I agree with you on 23. I think we’ve been CARB’ed to death here in California. I’m going to reread the info book though. Thanks for responding.
I’m still undecided about 24 too.