• Look up, the title of the blog " California's proposition 14 passsed."..You took it to the economics' of California. I provided all the information that I had on hand about the topic... I conceded that I had to backpedal on a position..... The blog was not about the economics' of California, so I did not feel I had to provide any information that was off topic. I did say I made a visionary statement.

    I know who I am, so I am not dependent on people like you to define me.... I have a long comment history.

    June 11, 2010 at 1:56 p.m.

  • Very interesting comment coming from someone who repeatedly insists that those taking issue with one of his wacky positions furnish data to prove their argument. Yet you furnish none. More proof, not that any was needed, that liberals feel they are ordained by their superior intellect to make the rules the rest of us must follow, but are not required to follow their own rules. You are nothing if not consistent.

    June 11, 2010 at 1:44 p.m.

  • lol..Observer
    Lol.... I knew it wouldn't take long for you to go back to your right wing babble.

    June 11, 2010 at 1:28 p.m.

  • I noticed that you left out an important word in your description of the United States of America. This country is comprised of fifty SOVEREIGN states. The current fiscal woes of California, New York and other bastions of left-wing thought are solely and exclusively attributable to Legislatures that are abysmally ignorant of the basic tenets of economics. The liberal loons and RINO's in these legislatures are convinced that one can tax one's way to prosperity, despite ample historical evidence to the contrary, including your beloved, unlamented USSR.

    That these states, by any reasonable measure, are verging on bankruptcy is beyond question. What is also beyond question is that their current fiscal plight is NOT attributable to hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, oil spills or other acts of nature or accidents. They have done this to themselves, the solution to their problems is in their control and, to the extent that they refuse to enact common-sense legislation, they are not entitled to one cent from any resident of a rational State that lives within its means.

    AltonEaston is right and you are wrong, as usual.

    June 11, 2010 at 1:23 p.m.

  • I don't know how I could have missed the last line of Alton's post.
    Conservatives like to look down on those states having financial problems by saying"Nancy is looking at a way for stable states to pay for broke states. Guess as long as some other taxpayer is stolen from, it is OK. "

    We're the United States of America, made up of 50 states, the Civil War is over, so it's time to act like it....Texas is not above taking stimulus money to balance our budget. Nothing wrong with that at all, and it's all taxpayer's money....

    From the May 26,2010 edition of the Wall Street Journal (no liberal rag)

    "Although Mr. Perry has railed against the federal economic-stimulus program, billions of dollars from that initiative helped Texas legislators balance the current budget. Those funds won't be available for the next budget.

    Political analysts say the state's financial woes may bolster the campaign of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Bill White, the former mayor of Houston"

    June 10, 2010 at 4:13 p.m.

  • Alton
    I had to do some backpedaling yesterday, when I said I" I hope all 50 states adopt that measure."

    Texas is a red state meaning there would be two republicans vying for the same position. Then again, the DNC has not been known lately, for pouring money into Texas. A lot of people want moderation, a format such as this ,would eliminate the extremes.

    I can see where the parties would divide the cost.

    I still think California will come out of its economic problems, but that was more of a visionary statement; not based on economic data. California has a lot of resources and they're not afraid to think outside the box; sometimes that jumps out to bite them, but many times it puts them ahead of the curve.

    June 10, 2010 at 3:45 p.m.

  • Interesting, since the individuals parties in Texas pay for their own primaries, who is going to billed for an open primary?
    It is interesting that you stated in one of your comments that Calif.
    will come out of its economic problems, the same day Nancy is looking at a way for stable states to pay for broke states. Guess as long as some other taxpayer is stolen from, it is OK.

    June 10, 2010 at 3:26 p.m.

  • I agree Legion357 but I wouldn't advise giving up because all is not lost..... Tuesday night, the labor unions went out in full force against Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. In full disclosure, I wish they would have defeated her but she localized the race and made her opponent the outsider. That is a case where special interest lost even though they poured more money and manpower into the race. She may be the exception rather than the rule but the pundits,polls, and the labor unions had egg on their face, Wednesday morning..... It goes to show that Bill Clinton still has clout.

    June 10, 2010 at 9:39 a.m.

  • I can only speculate, but the SC ruling allowing Corporations to act as individuals reminds me of the movie Demolition Man, or the original rollerball movie.

    Yeah conspiracy theory stuff, but in a way, it does seem to be the way the world and politics are slowly headed to.

    This Corp. buys that Corp. that is bought out by another and so on..... then the mega corp. is to big to fail, all the while wielding influence over politicians.

    The bottom line is that the peoples choices become more limited in commerce, elections and influence of elected representatives.

    June 9, 2010 at 7:03 p.m.

  • about the Supreme court ruling, I totally agree. It gives unfair advantage, no matter how you look at it.

    June 9, 2010 at 6:34 p.m.

  • born2me
    "Strength in numbers", that's an outstanding point, and I'm a little jealous I didn't think of that. Now I have two reasons to be against the proposition.

    It's just that we keep doing the wrong things hoping we'll get different results.... We'd need to do something to offset that recent Supreme Court ruling that treats corporations as individuals who can give unlimited amounts to buy an election.

    June 9, 2010 at 5:16 p.m.

  • Mike, I think you’re really missing the point with these elections. The people are getting sick tired of the same old song and dance the politicians keep playing. They want new faces, be it democrats or republicans, they’re sick of being pushed aside and not having their voice herd. Just look at the ole boy from S. Carolina, has not been heard of and won the democratic senate primary, and will face DeMint in the fall. They just want a new and fresh congress and will boot the incumbent’s right out of office. I just think you lefties don’t get it♠♠♠

    June 9, 2010 at 5:10 p.m.

  • In theory, it may be a good trial, but I just don't know. Like I said, there are way too many unknowns and if the vote gets too split up, that may not be good for anyone. There's strength in numbers and it's sad to say that most voters vote with emotions, and don't know what anyone stands for. Most don't take the time to study up on anyone, so where does that leave things?

    June 9, 2010 at 5:05 p.m.

  • born2me

    The partisan democrat in me (selfish) should not favor this proposition 14 because California is a blue state..... If a moderate republican does not have to satisfy a republican base; that candidate will be on even terms with a democrat under proposition 14. Of course a senate candidate can lie about his positions and the constituents would have to wait six years to vote them out.

    June 9, 2010 at 4:54 p.m.

  • Observer
    Not to beleaguer the point but I was talking about innovation,so my thoughts were on Mountain View, California, Microsoft Research Silicon Valley which was founded in August 2001 and now employs about 65 researchers; not necessarily corporate headquarters. Furthermore, today fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said we should keep spending; not the time... It is my understanding that California has cut back on their spending in a big way. They have even cut their social programs for young children.

    Sorry for assuming but most conservatives I know hate California because it is a progressive state. You are self described conservative, sorry if I mislabeled you...My mistake.

    June 9, 2010 at 4:43 p.m.

  • born2me
    But won't that imbecile gets selected by the voters?

    You might be right on the big money but I can see a situation where neither of the top two candidates are that big on guns or unions.... Why would the NRA or a union waste money on those California candidates. They might run of an ad for a candidate, only they have that person say that they don't support that position. Special interests wants results.

    Poll after poll will tell us that this country is neither far left nor far right; it's smack dab in the middle, so having those positions in California will be an instant loser.

    June 9, 2010 at 4:33 p.m.

  • "As long as they have Silicon Valley, Microsoft and innovative people..." Have you checked lately? Companies that can have already left California and I see no reason that that trend will not continue, if not accelerate, as the state continues to spend itself into a hole. Also, unless Microsoft has moved, they continue to be headquartered in Washington, not California.

    Where did I say that I hated California? What I did say is that California is the last state to which I think we should look for good governance. I will say that it is an excellent place to look for really dumb ideas that Texas should avoid.

    June 9, 2010 at 4:25 p.m.

  • I think I agree with this. I can see some instances where it might backfire, like splitting the vote so bad that a total imbecile gets elected, but it puts people on more even footing.
    It still doesn't stop the big money from having a stronger say in who gets elected. They still will have the power to flood the airways with their message.

    June 9, 2010 at 4:08 p.m.

  • Come on Writein, that's too vague.

    Where is the why?

    It's no longer an idea; they passed it.

    June 9, 2010 at 3:50 p.m.

  • Prop. 14 idea is stupid.

    June 9, 2010 at 3:47 p.m.

  • Observer

    This law puts everyone out there in the primary and two democrats might win or vice versa or a split but party affiliation doesn't matter; so it's not exactly the same. The local republican or democrat office will not have a say in who runs, unless it's done in the back rooms.

    I was not talking about economics' but I believe California as always, will come out of its economic woes and continue to be a dominant player. As long as they have Silicon Valley, Microsoft and innovative people who think outside the box, California will always be a shining example of success..... Why hate one of the 50 states?

    June 9, 2010 at 3:36 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    June 9, 2010 at 3:33 p.m.

  • Unless the law has changed since the last time I checked, a Texas voter who has registered as an independent may vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary. That seems to work well and avoids the obvious abuse of members of one party voting in the other party's primary for a candidate they think will lose in the general election. Also, why would we want to emulate a state that has managed to spend itself into bankruptcy and "wins" most polls of economists and businessmen as the worst state in the country in which to try to run a business?

    June 9, 2010 at 3:21 p.m.