Get the hint? California doesn't like Nazi supporters or corporate leaches.

And they've had enough of your BUSHit. Start planning your concession speech.

THANK YOU CALIFORNIA!!!!
Now that it's pretty obvious that none of the reform propositions in the California race will win (big shocker blue state!), I just want to thank California for yet again showing how stupid we all really are. I can't say that I'm surprised but it still is disappointing.

I have a few questions for Californian's who voted "no" on every measure.

1). Why did we have a recall election? What was the point in electing a new governor if we really don't want him to do anything? We could've stayed with Gray Davis and gotten the same results. There's no point in electing a governor to fix California's problems if we are not going to support him when he attempts to fix some of the many problems in this state.

2). Does this mean we're overwhelmingly happy with the way things are run in this state? Do we now agree that teachers, for some unfathomable reason, should get tenure and that it should be unreasonably difficult to get rid of bad teachers? Are we saying that unions should not ask their members for consent to spend their dues? If I'm in the teacher's union, and I believe that the probationary period should be longer (and there are some who are like that), I should be forced to support something I disagree with? Are we happy with the way our legislative districts are drawn up? Do we really want our spending practices to remain the same in this state so we could yet again go into near-bankruptcy?
Ask your legislators, union leaders, and Judge Wapner these questions because so far, they seem intent to keep the status quo. I have yet to hear any ideas to change any of this so I must conclude that people who didn't support any of these propositions are perfectly content with the way things are run right now.

It is funny that there are always jokes made at the expense of the so called "red" states, but believe me, living in a "blue" state is just as much of a joke.

Daniel - The people of California responded to a deep-seated need for a guy with an image of manliness, just like Reagan did for the country in the 80s. We just up and slapped him down quicker. Sadly the policy wonks like Davis will never win at least in the short term to charimatic figures....hey they spend every night in front of the tube. Kill Your TV!!!!!!!!!!

I'll take a quick shot at a few of Daniel's questions...

Why did we have a recall election?

Because the Republicans couldn't win by using a normal election and had to trump up that whole Power Crisis canard which any of us paying attention at the time knew was nothing but horseshit, and has since been proven as such to even those who voted for Arnold in the first place.

What was the point in electing a new governor if we really don't want him to do anything?

Nobody said we didn't want him to do anything. He was elected to work with the legislature as an elected official representing the needs and interests of Californians. He neither worked with the legislature (unless calling them names counts as "working with") nor did he represent the needs and interests of Californians.

We could've stayed with Gray Davis and gotten the same results.

I dare say you would have gotten better results, hence, I didn't vote for the recall. But I'm just clever that way.

There's no point in electing a governor to fix California's problems if we are not going to support him when he attempts to fix some of the many problems in this state.

Fixing problems is one thing. Governing in Terminator fashion is another. Aside from Prop 80, which should have been approved to force Pharm companies to discount their over-priced drugs in the state, there was nothing but incendiary, irresponsible dangerous proposals on the ballot.

Thanks to the phony Prop 79 (sponsored by the Pharm companies) I think voters didn't know what the hell to support on those, so they said NO to both. That one was a clear victory for the Pharm companies, of course!

Does this mean we're overwhelmingly happy with the way things are run in this state?

Not necessarily. See above.

Do we now agree that teachers, for some unfathomable reason, should get tenure and that it should be unreasonably difficult to get rid of bad teachers?

No. But we agree that using misleading and phony Republican talking points to sell measures won't work on either the ballot or the The BRAD BLOG.

Are we saying that unions should not ask their members for consent to spend their dues?

Yes, that's what we're saying. At least that's what the voters seemed to have clearly said.

When Corporations ask their shareholders for consent to spend their money on the same political lobbying, then perhaps we can discuss it. Until then, any union member who doesn't want their dues going towards political activity can opt out. As you know (right?) this initiative would have forced union members to opt in.

If I'm in the teacher's union, and I believe that the probationary period should be longer (and there are some who are like that), I should be forced to support something I disagree with?

No, you can leave the union, if it means that much to you. You may be surprised to learn that not all members of any given union agree with everything the union supports. Similarly, not every shareholder in a company agrees with every policy that company supports either.

Are we happy with the way our legislative districts are drawn up?

Not particularly. But neither are we interested in the solution that Arnold offered. Sorry.

Do we really want our spending practices to remain the same in this state so we could yet again go into near-bankruptcy?

As discussed earlier in this missive, a great deal of our "spending practices" were thanks to being screwed out of billions by the power companies who have been given a Get Out of Jail Free card by both Arnold and Dubya.

That said, I have an idea how we could have saved a wasted $160 million in wasteful spending practices: Not held the recall special election, and not held last Tuesday's.

Wow, if I was the Terminator, I could go back in time and save California a fortune!

Brad --- I think that's Prop 79 - the consumer version and Prop 78 - the big drug company version. Prop 80 was the electric service initiative.

But my sentiments entirely. Good job.

Arnold squandered a couple of other opportunities to gather money for our state: 1. the ridiculous vehicle tax rebate when he first was elected. Accomplished nothing but havoc-creation with local municipal budgets
2. Could have raised taxes on the richest Californians in order to steer their federal tax rebates to the California state coffers, and they would not have felt a thing.
3. Warren Buffett recommended early on he raise property taxes. Schwarzenegger let him go from the advisory team shortly thereafter.
Gray Davis was not perfect, but he was a knowledgeable bureaucrat who knew how to interpret charts and graphs. He also appointed far-sighted and responsible people--advocates for working, regular folks--to lead state offices.
We'll have to put up with the faux-action hero for a bit longer, but at least he and his selfish cronies did not get their way on November 8th. The Titanic was steered away from the iceberg, thankfully.

"There's now talk that either Warren Beatty or Rob Reiner will run against Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor. That gives Californians a real choice: Romantic lead, sitcom star or action hero." --Jay Leno

"Arnold Schwarzenegger's approval rating is down to 30%. After he heard this, Arnold said 'I'm not going to act all upset and hurt because I don't have that kind of range.'" --Conan O'Brien
(politicalhumor.com)

"My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it. People need somebody to watch over them. Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." –Arnold Schwarzenegger in a 1990 interview with U.S. News.

Hey, how's that goin' for ya Arny?

He really should listen to his wife - she is much brighter, especially in political areas. His problem is one of arrogance, which may work in the entertainment business, but doesn't go far with "normal" people. Considering his background from Nazi Austria, I would have guessed he would have headed the opposite direction from gw's party.

Jo #9

The governator is one of those 95% he talked about. But he does not know who to listen to, and should follow the advice Mugzi #10 mentions.

Instead he has been listening to the neoCons and neoConvicts and thus he is just as out of touch with the people as the neoCons are.

He began to blabber like bu$hit and sound like just another angry neoCon.

The people explained their position so he is back in touch again. For a short while I expect.

Remember, folks. Ah-nold is an actor. By 2008, he'll be running as a left-of-center Republican, campaigning as John F. Kennedy's nephew-in-law.

One problem: He wasn't born in the United States, and is thus ineligible to be president. But he'll think of something.

Jeez Brad, only a few? .. lol

Good job

You're one to talk Savantster

Funny!
www.arnoldsneighborhood.com

I remember they tried or perhaps are trying to change the laws about citzenship, shortly after ahnold was elected. I really thought, they thought, this person would be the next pres. The voting boxes must have been broken in California..eh terminator. M4 (who still can't believe he is married to a Kennedy)