Patterico's Pontifications

7/18/2010

L.A. Times: How About a Front-Page Article on Some Democrat Talking Points About How Rich Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina Are?

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 1:13 pm



The L.A. Times yesterday ran a front-page article purporting to be an analysis of whether it is an effective strategy to paint Republicans Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina as rich women out of touch with common folk. In so doing, editors got to discuss at great length whether Republicans Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are rich women out of touch with common folk.

Isn’t it wonderfully coincidental how the requirements of Big Media news analysis mesh with the propaganda needs of the Democrat(ic) party?

The article is titled Wealth defines California’s Senate, gubernatorial campaigns. The article begins by exploring whether Republicans Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are rich women out of touch with common folk.

Their Democratic opponents are homing in on the women’s wealth and penchant for private planes and other perks as a way to paint them as being out-of-touch with everyday voters — a return to the class warfare that marks so many campaigns.

It then explores whether it is a good strategy to paint Republicans Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina as rich women out of touch with common folk. (The balanced answer: it’s unclear!)

Whether Democrats Boxer and Brown have a “penchant” for “private planes and other perks” goes completely unexplored. (Boxer has a little penchant for private planes.) But in a pathetic attempt to seem balanced, editors do note Boxer and Brown’s own not inconsiderable wealth … at paragraph 26 of a 33-paragraph article.

A challenge the Democrats face is that although both have modest incomes compared to their opponents, they are well off compared to the average voter. Boxer is a millionaire; Brown and his wife, former Gap executive Anne Gust, have substantial stock and real estate investments, and he has come under fire for living in a $1.8-million Oakland Hills home while talking of frugality. Brown dismissed criticism of what he called a “modest little tree house.”

See if you can guess whether that information shows up on the front page. (Hint: it doesn’t.)

Editors don’t mention that Brown’s $1.8 million “modest little tree treehouse” was actually purchased for $2.68 million. Here is a description of Brown’s house that I found elsewhere. It doesn’t appear in the L.A. Times:

The three-bedroom home comes with bamboo floors, a spiral staircase, breathtaking views of the bay and roll-up family room windows that let the sea breeze wash in.

The office on the top floor has a private entrance. A spa level features a sauna and wetbar, while a dumbwaiter services every floor, making it easy to send a bottle from the wine cellar to the dining room.

When fog isn’t hovering over the bay, the home provides a view of the Golden Gate Bridge, according to a brochure of the home when it was on the market in 2007.

A description and photo of the five-level home is at the link.

Yes, there are a few things missing from the article.

Thank goodness the Democrat talking points are all there!

89 Responses to “L.A. Times: How About a Front-Page Article on Some Democrat Talking Points About How Rich Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina Are?”

  1. No matter what happens in the California election, we are headed for civil war, hopefully a cold one, in the not distant future. Frankly, I would rather vote for Willie Brown for governor than Governor Moonbeam. Willie has figured out the role of the public employee unions in the bankruptcy of the state and the municipalities. Brown is their candidate so what chance of his attempting reform ?

    I have a post on my blog so I won’t repeat myself. The short version is that it will soon be time to start thinking about ways to fight back when the governing class cuts off communication, like the internet (Fair Use, Emergency kill switch, etc.). They will not give up their privileges easily.

    The argument that is used when really rich Democrats run, like Rockefeller, for example, is that they have all the money they want and will feel no need to be corrupt. There are a lot of Democrats who got rich in office. Jerry Brown, even.

    Mike K (0ef8c3)

  2. What would the LAT have to do if it didn’t run interference for the entrenched DemocRATS, public employee unions, etc.?

    GeneralMalaise (26e9b5)

  3. Maybe it’s time to start a pool on which stock phrases the Dog Trainer uses when it makes its inevitable endorsements of Boxer and Brown. You know, the ones where they make some very light criticism of the Democrat endorsee just to demonstrate that they aren’t totally in the bag for him or her, then follow it up with a exculpatory sentence to grant absolution for the previously-stated transgression. I’ll suggest the following:

    For Boxer
    “This page has criticized Sen. Boxer for what can appear to be stridency and for her general bare-knuckled approach to politics. However, we recognize that on the majority of issues she is squarely in the mainstream of where most California voters. . .”

    For Brown
    “Brown has a tendency to leave the casual observer with the impression he sees the various political offices that he has sought as mere rungs on the ladder to some ultimate prize, whether that be the executive office in Sacramento or in Washington. However, we take him at his word that he is no longer interested in running for President and will devote his considerable energies and talents. . .”

    JVW (a52530)

  4. And then we have poor old San Fran Nan barely eking out an existence…

    Gazzer (800a42)

  5. Isn’t it somewhat problematic, though – part in parcel of the Codevilla article DRJ posted on yesterday? I’m sick of being ruled by super-rich people of any political affiliation, for what it’s worth…

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  6. No, the liberals believe we have way too many choices and the self-anointed Kleptocracy want to choose for us.

    This is not America.

    GeneralMalaise (26e9b5)

  7. So the basic idea is… we should exclude strictly from power those who know how to create, keep or grow wealth, is that about it?

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997)

  8. You don’t have to twist my words; just address them.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  9. I’m sick of being ruled by super-rich people of any political affiliation, for what it’s worth…

    I understand the sentiment, Leviticus, but I think we tend to elect the wealthy to office for two important reasons:

    1) Oftentimes the wealthy are in fact the high achievers in our society, the Type A personalities who are willing to put themselves through the campaign process.

    2) The wealthy are largely insulated from the day to day grind of having to work a 9 to 5 job, pay the mortgage, buy braces for the kid’s teeth, etc., so they have the financial stability and leisure time where they can afford to spend a year chasing political office.

    It may not be fair, it may not be exactly in our best interest, but that seems to be the way it goes.

    JVW (a52530)

  10. Or ignore them, I don’t care. The point is that super-rich people probably don’t “think, feel, reason, and act” in much the same way as their constituents, which is the whole point of representation – the reassembly of the whole in miniature form.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  11. If you don’t imagine that it skews thing in a particular direction, then we can agree to disagree on that.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  12. What would be more interesting to see is how families like the browns, clintons and gores can be in politics all their lives and be multi millionaires without actually working a day in their lives.

    Now that would be a story line I would love to see the lsm pursue.

    Jim (844377)

  13. The point is that super-rich people probably don’t “think, feel, reason, and act” in much the same way as their constituents, which is the whole point of representation – the reassembly of the whole in miniature form.

    Well, from a purely Menckenian view one might argue that it is a good thing that our leaders don’t think, feel, reason, or act in the much the same was as their constituents. There is something to be said for the idea that elective office ought to be reserved for the most accomplished and able among us, provided that they are honest and industrious men and women.

    On the other hand we have William F. Buckley’s famous dictum that he would rather be governed by the first 300 names in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard. The counterpart to your argument about being governed by the wealthy is that I am kind of tired of being governed by the Ivy League (no offense intended, Cornell alum Patterico). Our last four Presidents all had at least one Ivy League degree and our most recent two both have double Ivy degrees. Our Supreme Court is soon to be entirely an Ivy enclave. My guess would be that Congress is over-represented by Ivy grads. Just as we should be wary of the wealthy aspiring to office, so too should we cast a jaundiced eye towards the educational elite.

    JVW (a52530)

  14. This type of stuff has been going on nonstop for the past three months in the main Frisco rag…Jerry Brown’s own personal campaign organ.

    Andrew (39edac)

  15. I don’t mind the rich and wealthy seeking office. In fact, the longer they stay in business and the more time they are running a company the better.

    What I mind are people who, like the Kennedys, Clintons, Pelosi, etc, who begin their working lives as politicians and stay politicians. THAT I mind. Look at the bonehead policies of the BHO Admin, obviously not one of them has ever had to meet a payroll, write the FICA check, fire an employee or pay the health care costs for 10 or 100 people. They have no bloody clue.

    Like the now famous line from the Brown campaign, “This is the people’s seat!” I’m sick of careerist politicians thinking they own their position in congress.

    Vivian Louise (643333)

  16. Cali’s state workers and LA Times types are wise to hate Fiorina. She led HP during the dot com bust, and she beat the marketplace at large by being a cutter of bloat. Many say she was too aggressive in layoffs and other cuts, but I think, at least, she saved her company from the fate of many like it. It emerged from tough times looking strong.

    California’s state government is way too big to survive the dempression. While Fiorina will have no direct control over the state’s budget, she will have impact on the nation’s fiscal situation. She won’t be bailing out bloated gov workers and expanding the role and scope of government. She’s going to make cuts. Whitman too, I imagine.

    The parasites recognize these two women for what they are: hope for the regular taxpayers and a turnaround for bloated state governments, and an end to the gravy train.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  17. “There is something to be said for the idea that elective office ought to be reserved for the most accomplished and able among us, provided that they are honest and industrious men and women.”

    – JVW

    If I were inclined to think that accomplishment, ability, honesty and industry were consistently denoted by wealth, then I might agree with you – but I tend to believe that wealth is not so much an indicator of those good traits which win elections as it is a direct means of winning elections without necessary regard to those traits. And again: I think it necessary to have a descriptive representative, who thinks like his constituents even if he’s able to do it at a higher level, or to articulate it better, or whatever. I think there’s a middle ground between electing representatives of the lowest common societal denominator and accepting an aristocratic mentality that we must be ruled by our betters. And I don’t think the super-rich think like the common man.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  18. ________________________________________

    The point is that super-rich people probably don’t “think, feel, reason, and act” in much the same way as their constituents,

    But keep in mind that people — in the electorate and elsewhere — who are guilty of the foolishness, idiocy and phoniness of limousine liberalism (which really is merely left-leaning sentiments in general) do not have to be rich. A perfect example is the people in the city described below. They closed their eyes and happily and joyfully voted for politicians they undoubtedly associated with the left and the Democrat Party.

    Los Angeles Times, July 16, 2010:

    For years she picked up trash, tidied picnic tables, manned the snack bar and set up park events for the city of Bell. Rosario Torres’ $9-an-hour job came with no benefits, but it helped support her family of seven. When she was laid off in 2008, she applied for another city job but never heard back.

    Now, reports that Bell city officials are among the most highly compensated municipal employees in the nation has left Torres disgusted. The 36-year-old said she cannot fathom how the city manager earns nearly $800,000 in the same tiny working-class town where she struggles to find employment.

    The Times reported Thursday that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns nearly twice the salary of President Obama, Police Chief Randy Adams about 50% more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia more than the chief executive for Los Angeles County.

    Rizzo was unapologetic, saying he could earn just as much in private business. Several council members said Rizzo had saved the city from near bankruptcy and was worth every penny of his salary.

    A community of 36,000, Bell is predominantly Latino, its ethnic roots evident in the markets and panaderias that line its main thoroughfares. Mom-and-pop auto businesses, coin laundries and beauty salons dot the city, located southeast of downtown, where the Los Angeles River cuts beneath the 710 Freeway.

    Here, the notion of six-figure incomes contrasts sharply with modest neighborhoods of simple one-story homes and worn-out, littered strip malls. The median income is about $40,000, and 65% of residents over 25 do not have a high school diploma. Many said they were forced to look for jobs in neighboring cities or get by on part-time work.

    ^ That’s no more than a variation of the sociopolitical dynamics of countries like Mexico or, closer to home, inner-city America in particular, any blue state of America in general.

    Mark (411533)

  19. Did they mention that the POTUS is worth over $12 million and he got his start by stealing from a $1.25 million grant to help the poor neighborhoods in Chicago. He and the terrorists professor (O’Dumbo’s best friend) built a whole $1,600 gazibo in a park overgrown with weeds and stole the rest.

    Scrapiron (996c34)

  20. Leviticus, the thing is, Fiorina began her career not as a super-wealthy inheritor but rather as a secretary and worked her way up to the top.

    Meg Whitman began selling advertising for a student magazine and worked to become what she is.

    That they are extremely wealthy women is a plus to me. They have negotiated deals, made good and bad decisions, have had to fire, layoff, clean house, ridden and survived economic upheavals and managed to stay the course. They certainly weren’t perfect but at least they have shown their grit by understanding the value of a dollar. I’ll take that over any of the other fools contending.

    A description and photo of the five-level home is at the link.

    Um, five levels pretty much says it all.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  21. At least they didn’t just marry their money like Meghan’s daddy and John Kerry.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  22. #17 Leviticus:

    If I were inclined to think that accomplishment, ability, honesty and industry

    have often been indicated by the accumulation of wealth.

    I don’t find the idea of the “wealthy” being involved in politics indicative of an unrepresentative political class: I am motivated to encourage the production and accumulation of wealth in the constituents in order that they might also enjoy the leisure time to become more involved in politics.

    In fact, Louis Kelso outlined a plan to incorporate such an education into our public school system about 5 decades ago, but big business and big labor both were antipathetic to the idea of Americans learning how capitalism actually works. In spite of that, the development of new investment instruments like mutual funds have turned a large number of the former labor class into members of the investing class and brought us a little closer to Kelso’s dream of a truly capitalist society.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  23. in her world a boat’s a yacht
    a king size bed’s a cot
    a million’s not a lot

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  24. I’m sick of being ruled by super-rich people of any political affiliation, for what it’s worth…

    Comment by Leviticus

    Would you prefer that they are super rich AFTER they spend a “working life” in “public service” ?

    Both women began at the bottom and made their fortunes by personal effort.

    Then there are your idols, Ted Kennedy who hired another student to take his exams at Harvard and Joe Biden who was twice caught plagiarizing. John Kerry made his money the old fashioned way by marrying it. Rockefeller inherited it.

    I assume you would prefer Jerry Brown to, say, Fred Smith who proved his Yale business school professor wrong by starting Federal Express.

    Jerry Brown gave us diamond lanes while Smaith gave us world wide overnight delivery. Your prejudice is common on the left although rarely voiced so clearly. I prefer competence.

    MIke K (0ef8c3)

  25. So the basic idea is… we should exclude strictly from power those who know how to create, keep or grow wealth, is that about it?

    I’ve seen zero evidence that Americas rich possess any special insight into how to “create” wealth, as opposed to how to divert it into their own pockets.

    Subotai (67e4cf)

  26. Both women began at the bottom and made their fortunes by personal effort.

    And both women are liberals, a little fact which people on the right would do well to remember.

    Subotai (67e4cf)

  27. “At least they didn’t just marry their money like Meghan’s daddy and John Kerry.”

    – happyfeet

    True dat.

    “I’ll take that over any of the other fools contending.”

    – Dana

    Why? They’re rich too.

    Mike K: My prejudice is common amongst the “Country Class”, a term Codevilla coined to avoid a clearer but more loaded one: the Not-Rich class. Because then that would sound like class warfare, and that’s just so… icky.

    Better to pretend that there’s no correlation between monetary wealth and a sense of superiority and entitlement to rule, right? And better to pretend that there’s no correlation between financial strain and resentment of the ruling rich. It’s all just… cultural. People get rich because they become members of the ruling class; they don’t become members of the ruling class because they’re rich. That’s just… preposterous.

    Carly Fiorina’s net worth is ~ $2.2 billion dollars. How long do you think it’s been since she had to worry about her own financial situation? And people want to send her to Congress, because she… understands what they’re going through? Because she thinks like them, or lives like them? Whatever. It’s their prerogative.

    I don’t begrudge these women their money, or their success – I just don’t think it entitles them to represent anyone in Congress. Despite what you might think about my “idols”.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  28. Whitman and Fiorina, along with Brown and Boxer, are all members of the “ruling class”.

    There may be tactical reasons to prefer a member of the ruling class who resides in one party over a different member of that class from the other party. But only a fool would imagine that any of the four people mentioned have the best interests of the American people at heart.

    Subotai (67e4cf)

  29. “I’ve seen zero evidence that Americas rich possess any special insight into how to “create” wealth, as opposed to how to divert it into their own pockets.”

    – Subotai

    No no no, it’s obviously pure coincidence that so many politicians come out of office vastly wealthier than they went in. And that Congress is so reluctant to cap bonuses for the oh-so-brilliant (as evidenced by their vast wealth) financial managers who essentially drove the U.S. economy into the ground. It would make for some awkward scenes at the country club.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  30. Why? They’re rich too.

    Because they have at least worked to get to where they are. They are not lifelong pols who have been entrenched for their entire adult lives and never set foot in the private sector (like 90% of this administration). That is an important distinction. While it’s true that their wealth certainly doesn’t entitle them to a political position, it does at least evidence they are not strangers to hard work and are fighters. That’s something.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  31. This should not be surprising.

    Remember when the Los Angeles Times authored an editorial advocating for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8? Somehow they forget to refer to Reynolds v. United States, Murphy v. Ramsey, and Davis v. Beason.

    What would the LAT have to do if it didn’t run interference for the entrenched DemocRATS, public employee unions, etc.?

    Do not forget running interference for those who want to destroy our families and who want to destroy constitutional jurisprudence.

    Did they mention that the POTUS is worth over $12 million and he got his start by stealing from a $1.25 million grant to help the poor neighborhoods in Chicago. He and the terrorists professor (O’Dumbo’s best friend) built a whole $1,600 gazibo in a park overgrown with weeds and stole the rest.

    Any evidence for this?

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  32. I’m definitely neither a Meg or a Carly fan Mr. Subotai and I’m not at all sure I’ll trouble myself to vote for either of them.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  33. We don’t need “fighters” – it’s a false demand created by a system of sound bytes and patronage politics. We need people who actually understand and believe in their constituents, and articulate their issues and concerns fairly and consistently. I think that’s what it means to be a representative – a “fighter” without loyalty is just a mercenary.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  34. By “fighter”, Leviticus, I mean someone who will not buckle under outside pressure from the unions or special interest which have been some of the primary causes of Cali’s demise.

    Arnold presented himself as one who understood and believed in his constituents and clearly articulated his issues.

    In the beginning he was a representative, however, it did not take long to see that he lacked “fight”, hence was unable to remain loyal not only to the principles he espoused but to the very people who believed he truly would represent them.

    IOW, I want someone who will fight for the position they articulate, who will not collapse under pressure from outside entities nor from inside entities pushing for the elusive – yet deceptive – “bipartisanship”.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  35. Fair enough. But it’s important that said “fighter” stand up to pressure for the right reasons: because they truly wish to serve their constituents, not merely because the agenda of those pressuring them differs from their own.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  36. _______________________________________

    And both women are liberals

    But in the context of ultra-blue California, chock full of voters who believe voting for a flat-out liberal/Democrat is a sign of one’s sophistication, decency and generosity, the Republican candidates are of the right.

    I suspect Whitman is sort of squishy like Schwarzenegger, but possibly not as much. Fiorina, when compared with an ultra liberal like Boxer, automatically defaults to looking like a conservative.

    So in the mindset of a lot of Californians who love the idea of “if Greece can’t come to California, California will come to Greece. And if Mexico can’t come to California, California will come to Mexico,” anyone who doesn’t wrap him or herself around layers of leftism naturally is identified as a rightist.

    Mark (411533)

  37. While it’s true that their wealth certainly doesn’t entitle them to a political position, it does at least evidence they are not strangers to hard work and are fighters. That’s something.

    You could say exactly the same thing about the Corzines and Bloombergs of the world.

    The problem is that outside of Ayn Rands books, the sort of people who make a lot of money in business tend to be extremely fond of government power. In fact businessmen tend to want to transform the country into the sort of top-down hierarchical structure which they know from the business world.

    The sort of people who see the POTUS as a CEO and Congress as a board of directors are never going to support a theory of limited government. Their own instinct is to accrue power, not to give it away – that’s how they climbed the corporate ladder in the first place. The thought “This is none of our damn business” is not one which ever crossed their minds.

    Subotai (67e4cf)

  38. Didn’t we just have a major “Purity” discussion here a little while back ?

    So Fiorina and Whitman aren’t perfect enough followers of dogma for some commenters … *I* will take either of ’em over either Boxer or Brown any day of any week …

    I am living what happens when an Obama is elected over a McCain … happyfeet may not respect McCain, but I have to suspect that even happyfeet would have preferred the results of a McCain administration over the current incumbent disasters-in-residence …

    Purity is nice – in theory … and I’ll take effective government over this corruption any day !

    Alasdair (205079)

  39. Not voting for Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina virtually assures the election of Jerry MoonBeam Brown and Babs Boxer… and an ass-kicking from me, should our paths ever cross.

    GeneralMalaise (26e9b5)

  40. I’ll take effective government over this corruption any day

    You mean like the “effective government” we had under Bush?

    Purity is nice – in theory

    The Republicans who say this sort of thing tend to oppose limited government, period. Purity’s got nothing to do with it.

    Subotai (67e4cf)

  41. Purity is nice – in theory … and I’ll take effective government over this corruption any day !

    Purity is naive at best and self-defeating at worst. We can no longer afford such luxuries. At the end of the day, it’s about the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  42. What about honesty?

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  43. I have concerns. Following along right after poofter Arnold the election of Meg will go a long way towards forcing Team R to own California’s considerable problems. The state as far as I can tell is is doomed. Doomedy doomedy doomed. I’m not sure it helps anybody for Team R to preside over the California train wreck.

    Carly just adds another pet squish to Meghan’s daddy’s not inconsiderable pet squish menagerie.

    This gives me pause.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  44. just the one is

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  45. At the end of the day, it’s about the lesser of two evils.

    There is no “two evils”. There is only the one evil which manifests itself in different ways. And we all have to decide where we stand in relation to it.

    Subotai (67e4cf)

  46. there’s a feeling I get when I look to the west and my… ohmygod nevermind that part you people are fiscally doomed what are you people thinking the magic budget fairy is going to wave some kind of magic budget fairy wand?

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  47. Fiorina and Whitman aren’t perfect enough followers of dogma for some commenters

    They are perfect followers of dogma. The trouble is, their dogma (we can call it “big government libertarianism”) is destroying the country.

    Subotai (67e4cf)

  48. Hey, y’all Californians, you want to talk purity of blame come on out East to Illinois. We easily rival Cali’s fiscal mess and there is NO DOUBT that team D. owns the train wreck. They (and the unions) control everything!

    New blood. Everywhere we need a transfusion of new blood. Some patients will be able to improve by getting a transfusion and others will not. But we’ve got to at least try to save some of the states.

    elissa (a9ef5a)

  49. I’m not sure it helps anybody for Team R to preside over the California train wreck.

    Happyfeet, I don’t think that attitude is helpful at all. I have heard that argument quite a bit: let the Democrats ruin the state and then Californians will finally wake up and start to elect Republicans. In the meantime, however, we would have to live with the reality of the wrecked state courtesy of one-party rule. I fear that we are so far in the hole that we might take a whole generation to dig out of the mischief that the Democrats would implement.

    JVW (a52530)

  50. Mr. JVW my p.o.v. is grounded in a belief that the train wreck is already happening… right now it’s happening.

    Off the rails we are and there’s no stopping it.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  51. we meaning California.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  52. They wreck the state and then they move like borg or replicators to another formerly red state, and
    start wrecking that place, how do you explain Bennett and Huntsman and Hatch in Utah

    ian cormac (d28167)

  53. Hatch is a mother-loving psychotic.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  54. The thought of Jerry Brown, Part II, is staggering.

    Patricia (358f54)

  55. I don’t the Eagles, really intended ‘Hotel California’ to be that literal, how do you stay sane over there, besides the barbecuing

    ian cormac (d28167)

  56. _________________________________

    They wreck the state

    Don’t just focus on the politicians. Focus on the electorate too.

    You have to realize in this modern, feel-good, we’re-so-sophisticated era — or in the context of “I-want-big-mommy” Third Worldism — there is a lot of flaky, foolish left-leaning sentiment all over the place. Hell, you probably observe it on a regular basis (as I do) in the various people all around you. Perhaps in your spouses, children, parents, relatives, friends, neighbors, co-workers, acquaintances, etc.

    Always keep in mind that in a democratic system like ours, the politicians are merely a reflection of the many people who voted them into office. So if your mayor, governor, representative, senator and president — not to mention other elected bureaucrats — are idiotically of the left, then so is a lot of the electorate.

    Mark (411533)

  57. Yes, Boxer, Pelosi, both Sanchez sisters, Waxman,
    the feeling of nausea sets in rapidly, this state
    gave us Reagan and even Nixon, now we get alsorans

    ian cormac (d28167)

  58. ______________________________________

    I don’t think that attitude is helpful at all.

    But if a person dislikes a particular city, state or nation, then he or she should secretly hope that it become as ultra-liberal as possible.

    For instance, in the case of New York City, if one despises all the smug limousine liberals that dominate Manhattan, particularly in all the comfy offices of its large media conglomerates, then one should love to see that city’s current mayor — already very, very liberal — replaced by an ultra-liberal. IOW, it would be hilarious to see Michael Bloomberg replaced by one of the faceless proles of New York’s huge uber-leftist Democrat establishment. Perhaps someone like an Al Sharpton. Now that would deserve a “LOL.”

    Mark (411533)

  59. The American political class is a very much closed society.

    The only way to break through to be considered for a national office is to have money or to be able to exhibit whatever charms or personality or smarts that attracts the attention of those who have the money.

    Any usurpers are immediately condemned by the media class as unintelligent, rascists or worse.

    So, it really comes down to which rich person parrots the prevailing societal preferance in politics without saying something profoundly stupid.

    They are going to get theirs. Our only hope is that it doesn’t cost us too much once we decide which private-jet lackey gets to wield the power.

    A lot of people may be getting tired of this, but a lot of people don’t win elections unless they actually vote in numbers that actually matter.

    Just remember one thing: A whole lot of people, with a whole lot of money, and a whole lot of supporters and a whole lot of media believe that things are going exactly as they wish.

    Ag80 (363d6e)

  60. Hatch is a decent
    man guided by religious
    principles HF

    ColonelHaiku (26e9b5)

  61. hmmmph (x 5)
    hmmmph (x 7)
    hmmmph (x 5)

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  62. So, women like Whitman and Fiorini, who became wealthy based on their own efforts are bad. But women like Diane Feinstein, who is wealthy because of her husband (Michael Blum), is good.

    I thought the Dems were all about empowering women.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  63. Subotai #47 – do you believe that it is preferable to NOT vote for Fiorina and Whitman ?

    At this point, from what I know of Boxer and Brown, and how they have voted and exercised power over the years they are unlikely to do anything to try to counter the Obama administration …

    Whitman and Fiorina at least have the possibility of doing their best to counter the Obama Administration …

    Alasdair (205079)

  64. I’m sick of being ruled by super-rich people of any political affiliation, for what it’s worth…
    Comment by Leviticus — 7/18/2010 @ 2:33 pm

    — I wasn’t aware that so many of our elected representative are “super-rich”.

    Then again, I was under the impression that they are legislators, not “rulers”.

    Icy Texan (84a5bb)

  65. Perhaps those so repulsed by being “ruled by the rich” ought consider relocating to some workers’ paradise like Cuba or Venezuela . . .

    . . . ’cause Fidel’s just an ordinary citizen like everyone else . . .

    Adjoran (ec6a4b)

  66. There was a wire story from a week ago about how your representative doesn’t really introduce and write his or her own bills. Nope — it’s usually initiated by a lobbyist. I think the LA Times reporters fall into a similar trap — this time with the aid of political party hacks.

    10SCgal (9d2e60)

  67. I think we see a pretty good approximation of the contrast by looking at Scott Brown versus Ted Kennedy’s record.

    Brown drove me nuts last week, but the fact is this is a huge improvement over the democrat. We just don’t get this kind of ideological improvement anywhere else. Brown and Fiorina will have to manage a shaky coalition of democrat and republican voters instead of a die hard leftist group of voters. We should rejoice at this gain, at least until we’ve somehow reduced the numbers of die hard leftists in these blue states.

    If you’re a Californian and you reject Fiorina, don’t complain about the endless leftward march of big government.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  68. Fiorina is a patsy for Meghan’s daddy. This indicates that she is possessed of poor character. On election day I will have the choice of voting for some D or R lowlife or going to Viv’s for tasty pancakes.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  69. You should make your choice between the D and R lowlife, happyfeet.

    Mccain is a startlingly poor representative for a state that has much better sense. But let’s be honest, if Mccain replaced Boxer or Ted Kennedy, it would be a net gain.

    I don’t see the alternative. Each of these Senate seats is incredibly important for things like Judicial nominations (at several levels of the judicial branch), where each Democrat becomes a major hurdle.

    And Fiorina’s record goes a lot farther than Mccain support in a liberal state. Let’s not sell her short. She knows how to weather a rough economy by cutting spending. She knows how to meet a payroll. She knows what life is like for a hard working low level employee who is on the way up the food chain.

    You can’t use Mccain as a proxy for everything. Almost everyone who supported Mccain felt a little sick to their stomach about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if you ultimately voted for him versus Obama. Even if you hadn’t, most of the folks I know who did are not all that bad.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  70. Subotai #47 – do you believe that it is preferable to NOT vote for Fiorina and Whitman ?

    I believe that this battle was lost in the primaries. California voters now get to pick their poison.

    Whitman and Fiorina at least have the possibility of doing their best to counter the Obama Administration …

    There’s no possibility. Both are open borders shills.

    Subotai (e3beec)

  71. If Republicans refuse to vote for a clearly better candidate because their preferred candidate lost the primary, the democrats will be so happy to keep the gravy train going.

    This is kinda silly. Fiorina is drastically better than Boxer on most issues. And she’s not an open border shill.

    She’s one of those who says we need to enforce the laws we have on immigration, secure the border, and only once that’s done can we even discuss anything like guest workers. That last part gets a lot of people angry and convinced she’s an open borders shill… but she just plain isn’t. She wants a secure border.

    Politicians have to … be political.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  72. Leviticus

    I think you might have thought i was trying to distort your words before. if that is the case, i want to be clear. i was responding to the LA Times, not you. i honestly didn’t look at what anyone else had said.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  73. She’s one of those who says we need to enforce the laws we have on immigration, secure the border, and only once that’s done can we even discuss anything like guest workers. That last part gets a lot of people angry and convinced she’s an open borders shill… but she just plain isn’t. She wants a secure border.

    Sure, in the same sense that Bush and McCain (and Redstate) want a “secure border”. I suggest you check out her position on H-1b visa workers.

    Subotai (e3beec)

  74. If Republicans refuse to vote for a clearly better candidate because their preferred candidate lost the primary, the democrats will be so happy to keep the gravy train going.

    This whole phony “Democrats vs Republicans” kabuki is long overdue for retirement.

    The problem is the policies themselves, not the letter after the names of the people implementing them. The gravy train rolled along quite nicely while the GOP was running the show.

    Subotai (e3beec)

  75. To anyone who doesn’t realize that Fiorina is smarter by a magnitude of at least a hundred over Boxer– or thinks that Fiorina wouldn’t be a better and more thoughtful senator than Boxer–then sorry, but you are just not thinking straight. For anyone who says they can’t bring themselves to vote for Carly OR for Boxer but would willfully sit home in protest on election day, please do be aware that a senator will go to Washington from California. Does stomping your feet in frustration and washing your hands of the decision somehow improve America? NO. In effect, in Cali voting for “none of the above” re-elects Boxer by default and screws not only fellow right leaning Californians who have been dying for an opportunity to get rid of Boxer, but also the rest of America (who really would like a bit more balance and brain power in the Senate) as well.

    elissa (e825eb)

  76. Sure, in the same sense that Bush and McCain (and Redstate) want a “secure border”. I suggest you check out her position on H-1b visa workers.

    What does H-1b visas got to do with the border?

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  77. yes I did abase myself and vote for McCain and in doing so I brought shame upon myself and my family

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  78. The gravy train rolled along quite nicely while the GOP was running the show.

    Comment by Subotai — 7/19/2010 @ 10:22 am

    Sadly, you’re right.

    And I’m not pretending you don’t have a valid beef with the RINOs. They are a huge problem. In this case, I don’t know that Fiorina deserves the flack… and she’s such a huge improvement. It’s the Republicans who represent red states, but who interfere with limited government all the time, who really should be the focus of primary challengers. Let’s challenge the Lindsey Grahams and John Mccains and the like. Fiorina is not the problem.

    In fact, this is a really serious election. Just a couple of Senate races turning to a moderate Republican from a nutcase democrat would be a huge difference whose effects will be felt for generations.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  79. lol, feets, but those were the choices, Schmidt and Wallace were willing to bobble the ball, but not without encouragement from on high, which I don’t forget

    ian cormac (d407d8)

  80. #

    yes I did abase myself and vote for McCain and in doing so I brought shame upon myself and my family

    Comment by happyfeet — 7/19/2010 @ 10:55 am

    Ditto!

    I remember working for Mccain, and when we lost, the joke was that there was some good news and some bad news. The bad news, of course, Obama won, and the good news, Mccain lost.

    Anyway, this is the wrong time and place to be a ‘purist’ (I do not think that is a very accurate term, but you know what I mean).

    A blue state race when each Senate seat means so much difference in policy is simply the wrong place for this, in my opinion. Let’s focus on our party chair, our red state RINOs, the leadership positions in the house and senate all being Tea Party caucus members. Let’s try to be at least somewhat forgiving in races where we can actually make a big improvement over someone like Boxer.

    Her comment to General Walsh alone is enough for me to be willing to take a punch in the political gut to get her kicked to the curb.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  81. I believe that this battle was lost in the primaries. California voters now get to pick their poison.

    Douglas Hughes would have made a great nominee.

    Not voting for Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina virtually assures the election of Jerry MoonBeam Brown and Babs Boxer… and an ass-kicking from me, should our paths ever cross.

    Do not forget that, as attorney general, Brown refused to defend the state constitution.

    He opposed the defendant-intervenor’s motion for summary judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, even going so far as to claim that Section 7.5 of Articl1 of the California Constitution violates the Fourteenth Amendment ( PDF format ), despite the precedent of Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810, and similar relevant precedents like Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 and Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333. The Supreme Court had never overruled any of these decisions the way the Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick. As attorney general, Brown should have been aware of these precedents, and his legal duty was to defend Article 1, Section 7.5.

    What we need is an attorney general that will defend Article 1, Section 7.5.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  82. “I think you might have thought i was trying to distort your words before. if that is the case, i want to be clear. i was responding to the LA Times, not you. i honestly didn’t look at what anyone else had said.”

    – Aaron Worthing (A.W.)

    Oh. Sorry. My mistake.

    “This whole phony “Democrats vs Republicans” kabuki is long overdue for retirement.”

    – Subotai

    Yep. Absolutely.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  83. The day after you elect a Carly or a Meg their paramount concern will be getting re-elected.

    That always gets Team R ones in trouble.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  84. I suggest you check out her position on H-1b visa workers.

    So let’s see; Fiorina supports a program by which a limited number of highly-skilled, college-educated workers apply and are allowed into the country for a limited period of time on a visa that requires them to hold a job and pay taxes, and she’s an “open borders shill”.

    Meanwhile, Boxer demands free health care, fat welfare checks, absolute blindness on the part of law enforcement, and “sanctuary city” policies for literal millions of unskilled laborers who pay no taxes and says you’re a racist if you disagree….and she believes in “secure borders”.

    Only in the Obama Party. And only in the mind of an Obama shill like subotai.

    North Dallas Thirty (7c1ba9)

  85. Indeed, H1B visas, while the subject of a lot of lobbying by tech industry, is completely insignificant in the larger picture.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  86. subotai it time
    for most honorable use
    of the seppuku

    ColonelHaiku (26e9b5)

  87. I don’t think Subotai is an Obama shill. He’s just mistaken. Fiorina is a substantial improvement to Boxer at a critical stage where we really need this improvement. Even when she inevitably lets me down, I know she will have been a powerful improvement over Boxer.

    And not because of mere alphabetism. I’ve provided good reasons that have not been challenged as to why, so I won’t repeat myself.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  88. H-1b visas were the awesome but we blew it and didn’t give out anywhere near enough and so Microsoft and Intel everybody else had to move jobs to India and America will lose lose lose its edge in info tech cause of it.

    Stupid bigots.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  89. we have a wine cellar on our home and my grand daddy uses it a lot:-“

    Body Detox  (701f04)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 2.5640 secs.