Patterico's Pontifications

10/26/2018

Your Anti-Endorsements for California’s Statewide Offices

Filed under: General — JVW @ 2:59 pm

[guest post by JVW]

This time of year, no matter where you live, you are undoubtedly blanketed with endorsements for the midterm elections. Newspapers, to be sure, have traditionally published a full list of how they believe the tuned-in citizen — and in the case of the Dog Trainer, the non-citizen (I kid, I kid) — should mark his or her ballot, but others have gotten in on the act as well, from PACs to vapid celebrities, all of them deigning to explain to us unwashed rubes how we should interpret the character and promises of the various candidates.

But my lot in life is to be a grumpy right-winger in a state where the solid majority of my fellow voters desires entirely different outcomes than I do. So be it. For this election cycle I don’t want to tell my fellow Californians how to vote; I will instead implore you how not to vote. What I am expressing here are the ways you should definitely not mark your ballot twelve days from now (or, in the age of vote-whenever-the-hell-you-want, yesterday). Please understand that just because I beg of you not to vote for candidate X doesn’t mean that I wish you to vote for his or her opponent, candidate Y. The sane move in some cases may be to make no choice between candidates. I’ll leave that determination to your good judgement. With that, here’s how you should not vote in California:

U.S. Senate
Do not vote for Dianne Feinstein, the definition of a politician who has overstayed her welcome. She somehow cultivated a reputation through the years as a moderate Democrat, but that seems entirely based upon the fact that she would support tax cuts for her wealthy constituents while favoring lavish defense budgets which helped her state’s economy and enriched her husband. Beyond that her most notable achievements in a half-century of — ahem, ahem — “public service” have been her “assault weapons” ban which did virtually nothing to stem gun violence, and her leadership as an unstinting cheerleader for abortion. And, as we discussed last month, her behavior in the Kavanaugh confirmation process suggests either a unethical politician who is trying to reinvent herself as a committed leftist in order to placate the critics in her caucus or a senile geezer whose office is entirely run by her staff. Do not allow this old biddy to shuffle around Washington for another six years.

Governor
Gavin Newsom is what you would get if you could somehow combine the ethical sleaziness of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the glib banalities of Barack Obama, and the progressive white male privilege of Ted Kennedy. A while back I promised a full post on his odiousness, and I still plan to cobble it together in the next few days. Suffice to say, he has run a campaign in which California’s manifest governing problems (massive levels of poverty, a shaky budget foundation, a looming pension disaster) take a back-seat to virtue-signaling on twee environmental causes (“I’m fighting Trump on offshore drilling!”) and the sort of monomaniacal social issues that set progressive hearts aflutter. This guy is a clown, and not worthy of your support.

Attorney General
When Kamala Harris left this office to ascend to her Senate seat in Washington where she will likely chill for four years before becoming her party’s Presidential nominee in 2020 (I’m still standing by this prediction I made on election night two years ago), an unaccomplished twelve-term Congressman named Xavier Becerra was appointed by Governor Brown to take her place. Becerra appears to be one of those down-the-line leftists who has spared himself the indignity of working in the dreaded private sector: his career is law school to a nonprofit providing legal aid to the poor to serving as staff for a state senator to deputy state attorney general to being elected to the state assembly to winning a seat in Congress. All along the way, he has never failed to note the instances where he is “the first Latino” to attain some position. As the state attorney general, his priorities appear to be trying to extort settlement money out of corporations and conspicuously battling the Trump Administration at every opportunity. Despite having a $216 million budget and 4100 employees at his disposal, he sees fit to waste $25,000 per month to retain the services of failed ex-Attorney General Eric Holder. A vote for Xavier Becerra is a vote for weaponizing law enforcement on behalf of the Democrat party and left-wing interest groups, and I urge everyone not to vote for him.

Superintendent of Schools
Tony Thurmond strikes me as the typical political lifer who is giving up what I presume to be a safe state assembly seat (annual pay: $104,118) eight years before he would be term-limited out in order to run for this statewide office (annual pay: $175,182). He’s a Democrat, endorsed by the state’s education blob dominated by teacher’s unions, and has been blessed by the full range of left-wing activists from Kamala Harris down to Planned Parenthood. The teacher’s unions are desperate to tamp-down any enthusiasm for charter schools, and since Gavin Newsom has now disavowed his earlier support for charters, the education blob is hoping that a Newsom-Thurmond axis will strangle them in the crib. Unless you think that the public employee left is a responsible steward of our state’s school system, you should keep your blue or black-ink pen away from the Thurmond oval on your ballot.

There are naturally other offices up for consideration, but I’m going to leave my anti-endorsements with these four. I’ll let you know what I think about the various ballot initiatives sometime next week.

– JVW

41 Responses to “Your Anti-Endorsements for California’s Statewide Offices”

  1. Tony Thurmond’s opponent is a guy named Marshall Tuck, who barely lost four years ago to the hand-picked union stooge ex-assemblyman Tom Torlakson (see how history repeats itself?). I have never met Tuck, though he is a friend of some close friends of mine, but I will certainly vote for him again just as I did four years ago. We can’t afford another four years of a rubber stamp for the education blob.

    JVW (42615e)

  2. When CA went to “Top TWO” several years ago it all but guaranteed there will never be another Republican senator from CA. Loathsome and evil Feinstein may be, Kevin Deleon is a far left true believing nutcase. Pairing him with Harris is a match made in socialist dreams, but, will result in nightmares for the rest of us.

    Don Simpson (0b47d2)

  3. Some observations:

    (a) i’m planning on voting for the not-feinstein candidate, mostly because i think that there’s a serious risk that by the end of another six year term, she will be suffering from age erlated faculty decline.

    (b) i detest gavin. i did not vote for him in the primary. the man has no moral center.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  4. > all but guaranteed there will never be another Republican senator from CA

    that was already all but guaranteed.

    hell, the last time feinstein ran was before the rules change, and … the republican primary was so barren of realistic contenders that the nominee was an autism activist whom literally nobody outside the autism community had heard of prior to the election, and she only managed to draw 38% of the vote.

    top-two isn’t *helping* the california republican party particularly, but it’s not to blame for the party’s problemns, either.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  5. I have no vote to cast in California, but I nevertheless enjoyed reading these non-dorsements. And I very much concur with you regarding Harris in 2020, which is a thoroughly chilling prospect.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  6. I split my ticket in Houston yesterday, the exception being in the Texas lieutenant governorship race, in which I voted for Democrat Mike Collier instead of incumbent Dan Patrick. Collier, a former Price Waterhouse auditor & CPA, will be obliterated, but he’s objectively the best qualified candidate on the Dems’ statewide ticket. His campaign has gotten zero support and zero oxygen — Beto has sucked up all of the oxygen and money on his side — and Mike has generally avoided national hot-button issues in favor of good-government/statewide issues, which makes sense given the lieutenant governor’s main role in Texas government (in chairing the Texas Senate), but which seems hopelessly outdated politics.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  7. Loathsome and evil Feinstein may be, Kevin Deleon is a far left true believing nutcase.

    That’s how I felt six months ago, but I have come to realize that Feinstein and de Leon will vote similarly probably 98% of the time. For a difference that small, let’s send DiFi into retirement in ignominy. And there is a greater possibility that de Leon will be caught in some sort of ethical nightmare (likely helping himself to public money he is not entitled to) than there is that Feinstein will, so far all we know the seat may be open again in two or four years.

    JVW (42615e)

  8. Gosh, JVW, I know this will come as a shock to you, but the Los Angeles Times begs to differ with you on all accounts. (One of my pet peeves is when major media outlets endorse candidates. Of course, in Los Angeles they are inevitably Democrats for the most significant positions. By default, I don’t believe there can be any real objectivity in reporting…)

    Also, Golden Staters, have you seen this:

    San Francisco in November will become the largest city in the nation to allow noncitizens the chance to vote in a local election, making the city once again a flashpoint in the debate about immigration.

    Noncitizens, including those without legal status, will be allowed to vote only in a school board race and just a little more than 40 have registered to vote so far.

    Still, the decision carries major symbolic force and has become the latest punching bag for conservatives who already are using California’s efforts to protect people in this country illegally from President Trump’s immigration crackdown as a political issue in the midterm election.

    California has gone further than any other state in offering opportunities to those here illegally, including providing special driver’s licenses, college tuition breaks and child healthcare. Voting has been a more sensitive topic, but experts said it fits both the larger political trends in California as well as the conservative backlash.

    “It will speak to that sort of sense that change is coming to the United States and that change is being done extralegally somehow,” said Louis DeSipio, a professor of political science at UC Irvine.

    Guess you’ve got to start somewhere if your goal is to get them the clearance to vote in statewide elections.

    Dana (023079)

  9. So when Donny Jr.’s wife finally agrees to her NDA as part of their divorce (I’ll bet she’s driving a hard bargain!) and Kimberly Guilfoyle is freed to marry Donny Jr, her ex, Gavin Newsom, will likely be the Governor of California — thereby making the Governor of California the POTUS’ daughter-in-law’s ex-husband.

    I’m pretty sure that’s unconstitutional somehow. Or else it’s like crossing the streams in “Ghostbusters,” or mixing the anti-matter and matter in the warp drive.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  10. Dana — they’re allowed to vote in school board elections. I’m not working as a precinct officer so I have no idea how they’ll manage a split roll in practice. The logistical problems with doing two different sets of voters in the same election was one of the primary reasons I voted no.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  11. Obviously the jungle primary leaves no good choices in the Senate race, but I don’t think voting for whatshisname is very wise.

    Feinstein’s voting record is more moderate than most Dems; she “only” has the 33rd most liberal voting record.

    What is gained by putting a guy into the Senate who will compete with Kamala Harris to be the most liberal liberal?

    To the extent Feinstein becomes more enfeebled by age and ineffective, so much the better.

    Dave (9664fc)

  12. Aphrael,

    I think the point is, this is just the start. Given California embrace of immigration, it stands to reason that the push will be for illegal immigrants to be able to vote in state elections

    Dana (023079)

  13. As close to bravery exhibited by the stock holders in a real long time, kudos.

    Bob (9af831)

  14. #6 Voted for a Democrat?

    As I always say, we don’t understand the Left.

    Bob (9af831)

  15. Doesn’t the Fourteenth Amendment mandate that the voters in federal elections be the same voters as those who elect the state legislature?

    nk (9651fb)

  16. No, I guess not. Which Constitutional provision am I thinking of?

    nk (9651fb)

  17. Dana — they’re allowed to vote in school board elections. I’m not working as a precinct officer so I have no idea how they’ll manage a split roll in practice.

    Supposedly the noncitizens will be on a separate voter roll, and they will be given a ballot that includes only the school board and other municipal elections. But I am wondering what sanctions there are for mishandling the ballots and giving a noncitizen a full election ballot, both for the noncitizen voter and for the election judge who gives him or her the ballot.

    JVW (42615e)

  18. I’m glad whatever “we” you’re referring to doesn’t include me, Bob. I’m not in your cult, but I’m a fourth generation Republican in a state where Republicans were scarcer than hen’s teeth for most of those decades. I’m comfortable in my skin. But your hyperbole and hostility is duly noted, for what they’re worth, which is precisely nothing.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  19. Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1, nk.

    The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

    Dave (9664fc)

  20. The 17th Amendment extends the same rule to Senate elections.

    Dave (9664fc)

  21. Well that is how the warp drive works, where do they think food comes from if not the central calley.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  22. Thank you, Dave.

    nk (9651fb)

  23. Were I still living in CA, I would leave any Dem vs Dem contest blank, vote against every judge seeking retention (barring special knowledge), vote against all bonds and most every other initiative that did not include “tax cut”, “split the state” or “nuke San Francisco”, and then … oh, wait this is why I moved.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  24. I have to take issue with the list of “issues” that Patterico lists as important. These are uninteresting to the voters and WILL be ignored. What the GOP should be talking about is:

    Traffic
    Gasoline prices being $1 more than 47 other states
    Infill development putting giant apartments in single-family neighborhoods
    Traffic
    Local politicians posturing instead of taking care of business
    Bike lanes, bus lanes, other traffic impediments
    Traffic
    The lack of a good deli
    Why were 1 million illegals given drivers licenses when there is so much godddam traffic.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  25. Any would-have-been kids of Newsom-Guilfoyle would be early teens by now, but those hypothetical weekend exchanges would be both awkward and extravagant.

    urbanleftbehind (7ca14a)

  26. I think Cox gets to within a 54-46 result which helps the house races and repeals the gas tax.

    urbanleftbehind (7ca14a)

  27. So, if California extends the franchise to non-citizens for the California legislature, it will have to let them vote in federal Congressional and Senate elections too or, paradoxically (and depending on how “living” Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment is), risk losing some portion of its apportionment for Congressional districts.

    nk (9651fb)

  28. And who the hell is this Amy Schumer all you guys keep mentioning here?

    nk (9651fb)

  29. It’s a mythical creature like a krait dragon or a shaihulud.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  30. California’s Republican voter supply really suffered from the whole ‘nationwide military base closure’ thing, but I’m betting a Pete Wilson type running on an anti-immigrant platform of NO MORE STOLEN BIKES could clean up among the aging mestizo alt-right in at least a few districts.

    Julius Cesar (23d893)

  31. Patrick, If you have time will you post your suggestions on LA County judges?

    Stu707 (3a9737)

  32. Stop talking about my Arizona cousins, jules.

    urbanleftbehind (7ca14a)

  33. The aging mestizo alt right, that is.

    urbanleftbehind (7ca14a)

  34. And neither Ted Nugent nor Kathy Griffin got something like the intro to this.

    urbanleftbehind (7ca14a)

  35. it is very likely that DiFi/dispy/DiLie leaked –illegally — two-door Ford’s letter.
    that is criminal and has a jail sentence associated with it.

    Therefore: best to get her re-elected (as opposed to her further left opponent).
    Then, after she wins re-election, prosecute and imprison.

    it is the law.

    jb (a3c1bc)

  36. …..I’m betting a Pete Wilson type running on an anti-immigrant platform of NO MORE STOLEN BIKES could clean up among the aging mestizo alt-right in at least a few districts.

    Julius Cesar (23d893) — 10/27/2018 @ 7:49 am

    You mean like here in San Diego? I see those stolen bikes all over the city.

    I sure as hell wouldn’t mind Pete Wilson as Mayor again. I know- wishful thinking.

    Bill H (383c5d)

  37. Pete was legit as mayor and it wasn’t immigration that cost him the perch that went to Dole, it was Wilson being pro-choice

    urbanleftbehind (7ca14a)

  38. Could you do run thru of the list of propositions on the CA ballot?

    Sunny (d7fa2b)

  39. I’ve heard a lot of people say they will write in Travis Allen for Senator. Sounds good to me.

    With the illegals voting along with the homeless and the rich, the Dems have locked in power for another generation. (Of course the illegals are only voting for the school board, wink wink.)

    Newsom is so loathsome…how do I count the ways? We’ve had Savonarola for eight years and now tothe guy bending his elbow at the Dive Bar every night.

    Patricia (3363ec)

  40. Anti-endorsement is an interesting idea.

    Could we maybe introduce the idea of an anti-vote? I vote against Mr. X. That means his vote count goes down my one. No one else gets a positive increase.

    Bored Lawyer (8ea02a)

  41. I must say, this post is the most succinct explanation of why anyone considering living in California should change their minds, and anyone already IN California should flee.

    C. S. P. Schofield (043293)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2399 secs.