Yes on Prop. 76 Time to end reckless state spending binge

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | 10/21/05 | San Diego Union Tribune

[goldstategop]

As individuals. Its my understanding the party leadership is opposed to the entire idea - completely understandable since they don't want to lose the districts where its pointless for Republicans to run in because the party registration is so lopsided in favor of Democrats.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[calcowgirl]

We vote as individuals--or should.

The "party leadership" of the GOP is recommending Yes on Prop 78 (socialized medicine light). These "party leader" on both sides of the aisle don't speak for all voters, and we shouldn't let them.

The party registration is lopsided because of the minority population is concentrated in the urban areas. This will be retained because of the Voting Rights Act. No amount of redistricting will change that, imo. I live in a competitive assembly district and the GOP just got trounced--not because of district lines, but because they failed to put up even a half-competent campaign for the seat to replace Mike Gordon.

Did you ever think the reason the GOP is losing is because they offer up milk-toast moderate candidates and run ineffective campaigns? That is what I've seen lately. When they actually TRY and then lose, I might consider (reluctantly) handing over the process to a bunch of unaccountable, specially selected representatives.

[goldstategop]

Hey, I do agree with you about candidates. There are limits to what we can do about leveling the playing field in terms of redistricting but its no excuse for the GOP not to run the best candidates in places where they can win - including places like your district. As long as the party doesn't get its house in order, its doomed to be in the minority. They can get a couple of more districts under a scheme that disregards party affiliation but if they run milquetoast RINOs with a wishy washy message, I'd look for things to the stay the same. My view is the voters, not the politicians, should decide who stays in office.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[SierraWasp]

My problem with 77 is one crucial point in it's "process!" It's at the point where the Dems are required to select the Repubs that will select the judges and vice versa.

The problem is that there are virtually NO "moderate" Dems in CA to choose from, yet it is obvious that NO "conservative" Repubs will be selected by the Dems for the ultimate choosing of retired judges.

The appears to be only a slight edge for Perata and the Dems on paper, but in reality... It is huge!!!

But even beyond that specific flaw, this whole inititive is designed to force all CA politics to "moderate" positions and when there are few, if any, "moderate" Dems... It makes the whole thing an exercise in futility!!!

Thus a firm "NO" vote is preferrable!!!