I read that article as "I don't like California and the people who live there".
And what's with "California, the richest, most populous, most dynamic state in the country" and then continuing on for 10 paragraphs about how shitty the people there are. I don't understand. Adam. > -----Original Message----- > From: Daryl Walsh [mailto:dwalsh@;liquidprint.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:48 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Election Day! > > > Oh, California > > Oct 24th 2002 > From The Economist print edition > > The Golden State has become a one-party haven. It's not a pretty sight > > ACROSS America, political power rests on a knife-edge. A > slight slip could > switch control of the Senate, or of the House, or of numerous > governors' > mansions. The result of this gridlock, Americans are so often told, is > politics of the basest sort. Caution and defensive negativity > are the order > of the day. Big issues go unaddressed while political troops > snipe at each > other in gruelling trench warfare. Political life in a "50-50 nation" > regresses to a tenacious battle of primitive loyalties. > > Could politics be any worse? Well, for one in eight Americans, it is. > California, the richest, most populous, most dynamic state in > the country, > definitely does not have 50-50 politics. Its public life > lacks even the > semblance of balance-and it stinks. > > California's Democratic governor, Gray Davis, is cruising towards > re-election with a ten-point lead, according to the latest poll. Both > senators (neither of whom is up for re-election this time) > are Democrats, as > is the bulk of the congressional delegation. Thanks to > gerrymandering by the > Democrats, the entire state can muster only one competitive > congressional > seat-the one currently occupied by Gary Condit, a disgraced > Democrat who is > retiring. State government is equally one-sided: the Democrats have > comfortable majorities in both houses. Just one statewide > office is held by > a Republican. > > And the result of this marvellous consensus and unanimity? It > is hard to > think of any piece of legislation that Mr Davis will be > remembered for, > other than a muddled attempt to solve the electricity crisis. > There has been > little reform at the state's dreadful schools and none at its > hospitals; > transport is worse than ever and voters are seething at the > possibility that > their water, like their power, may one day dry up. Enthusiasm > for politics > is even lower than it is in the rest of the country. The only > flurries of > interest come when laws are forced on the politicians through ballot > initiatives raised by frustrated interest groups. > > The absence of political tension has also limited outside > interest in the > state. To be fair, George Bush's campaign did lob $13m worth > of advertising > into California in a last-minute salvo in 2000; but Al Gore > still carried > the state by 12 points, and Mr Bush's administration has paid > little heed to > California's wishes since then. He did not support Bill > Simon, Mr Davis's > opponent in the Republican primary-and has kept his distance since. > > The domination of California by Democrats is not a reward for > their own > talent. It is the result of the collapse of the state's > Republicans. Mr > Davis is as unpopular as a governor has ever been. His poll > numbers have > stuck around their current 41% for months, and as many as one in five > Californians have still not decided whom to vote for. This > gives the Simon > campaign a fragment of hope (one apparently rogue poll showed > him only three > points behind). But even if the race narrows, it ignores the > point: with an > energy crisis, a horrendous budget deficit and a reputation for mixing > money-raising with law-making, Mr Davis should surely be the > one desperately > trying to catch up. > > His relative comfort stems from a pre-emptive defence by his > Machiavellian > campaign manager, Gary South. The Democrats spent $10m during > the Republican > primary attacking Mr Bush's choice, Richard Riordan, a former > mayor of Los > Angeles, for supporting abortion; the Republican die-hards > duly voted for Mr > Simon, a political novice who is against abortion. But even > this scam, on > reflection, seems more a testament to the California Republicans' > boneheadedness than Democratic cunning. When Jeb Bush > intervened on behalf > of Janet Reno in the Florida primary, trying to oust the more > electable Bill > McBride, those legendarily intelligent Democrats (remember > the old ladies > who voted for Pat Buchanan by mistake in 2000?) saw the ruse > a mile off and > picked Mr McBride. > > At any rate, Mr Simon cannot have disappointed Mr South. A > first attempt to > get his campaign airborne crashed when a jury found his > family firm guilty > of fraud. That judgment has been reversed, but now Mr Simon has made a > slight fool of himself in a debate with Mr Davis, brandishing what he > claimed were photographs of the governor illegally soliciting campaign > contributions in his office. It turned out that the > photographs had been > taken in a private house. > > The problems go much deeper than Mr Simon, a worthy sort who > simply seems to > have been promoted beyond his political abilities. The recent state > Republican convention in Anaheim showed how little the > California party has > learned about Mr Bush's compassionate conservatism. Barely > bothering to go > through the motions of appealing to minorities, the roster > featured a series > of middle-aged white men. Meanwhile, at the back of the hall, > a talented > young black assembly candidate from south Los Angeles > complained that he had > got no help from the party. In Texas, he would have been on > the podium. > > Bring on the Terminator in 2006 > And the consequences of more one-party rule? Mr Davis's > "pay-to-play" system > will continue to operate, with the governor raising money by promoting > himself to businesspeople as a necessary bulwark against the > regulating > radicals in his own party. Mr Davis, who should never be > underestimated, may > use the cash to have a crack at the presidency. The big hope > for the state > focuses on the 2006 race, when Mr Davis is term-limited and when a new > campaign-finance law he has just signed kicks in, making it > much harder to > raise money from outsiders. > > Two Democrats, the state attorney-general and the treasurer, > both hope to > carry forward funds from easy re-elections this year. > Meanwhile, Arnold > Schwarzenegger is edging back into contention for the Republicans-his > attributes being not just his muscles but also his money. In > the future, > thanks to the new fund-raising law, Californian politics may > become the > exclusive domain of the very rich-which may be a better thing > than being the > exclusive domain of one party. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:jacob@;excaliburfilms.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:18 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Election Day! > > > hmm... Can I vote in a different state? :) > > At 10:14 AM 11/5/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >who's the least obnoxious. A business man with no experience > in running the > >state government and whose company has been indicted for fraud, or a > >professional politicians who'll do quite a lot for campaign > contributions. > > > >larry > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
