California governor's definition of vigilence?
Posted on 06/06/2002 10:22:51 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:37:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
If he has experience money can't buy, I wouldn't think he'd need the grief:
"If it comes down to taking the money and taking the grief vs. not taking the money and not taking the grief, I'll take the former any day of the week."In other words, we'll antagonize the voters if we can get a few thousand more campaign dollars by doing it.
Hardly a principled stand, no? And an insult to our intelligence, to boot.
Who the heck is going to vote for this man?
D
Same ones that voted for him before!
Well, he may have some not vote for him,
but they would have to have a conversion experience
to vote for any one with money. /Sad!
This quote from Ronaldus Magnus couldn't be more effective than it is in Davis' case.
Simon need say nothing more from here 'till November.
We have plenty of power at inflated prices. Basically, Davis' theory is: spending as much money as necessary to prevent blackouts. When we don't need the power, sell it back (at pennies on the dollar). Just no blackouts!
We have spents BILLIONS of dollars on power purchases, locked California into $43 billion in long-term, over-priced energy contracts, and basically indebted our children with this gross mismanagement.
Davis thinks that Enron and Arthur Andersen executives should be in prison for allegedly manipulating the power market. What DAVIS did to us is far worse than anything those companies did!
Dump Davis!
"There are a lot of advantages to having resources in the bank in a state this big with an electorate that's not particularly politically attuned most of the time," he said. "If it comes down to taking the money and taking the grief vs. not taking the money and not taking the grief, I'll take the former any day of the week."
In other words, we have PT Barnum selling cheap knock off of Ralf Loren. It works because stupid people vote.
Take Vigilant. It tries to touch on every hot-button issue, which makes the message just a shade incoherent. I doubt that it will change anyone's mind.
Interesting that Search Out was made just for the Central Valley. If you look at the backup on the page I linked to, you will see one of the most hated (by me) fallancies of government: The confusion of inputs with outputs. He brags about how he's increased funding, but doesn't talk about what that funding did. And of course the Sherrifs will endorse you if you send enough money their way! Now, maybe he's helped and maybe he hasn't. I'm inclined to believe the latter, simply because he doesn't present any concrete results.
D
'Vigilant' correction--"Above all, I'll keep working hard to do what's right LEFT for California."
The little red and green fiery types that grow on bushes and spice up any food rather nicely. The name came from the 30 or so plants I grow every year, just to keep the family in good health.
I sort of hope one of the debates will be soon, and that Simon will stick to the important issues and make Davis defensive, but I also worry about the format of the debates.
The 3rd Republican debate with Simon, Jones, and Riordan was very boring. The panel of interviewers (from LATimes, KNX radio from LA, some TV station from LA, etc.) kept steering away from real issues, perhaps to help Riordan by constantly bringing up abortion; it backfired, and he sounded very patronizing toward women.
If Simon has to debate against Davis on abortion because of stacked questions, he could occasionally bring up partial birth abortions to show Davis as the extremist he is. (Simon should still say what he believes the governor can and can't do about the issue.) Then the questions might go back to real issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.