Do you support Gavin Newsom for Governor of California? (Los Angeles: live, farm)

[northbayeric]

Heh, love the current vote tally, running 26 to 5 against!

[happ]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Happ, in case you didn't notice, the distinction in my post was far left Democrats. The rest of the state is primarily comprised of moderates with some pockets of rabid Republicans. Most people tend to be somewhat fiscally conservative except for the profligate left-leaners.

By the way, your broad-brush description of those choosing to leave the state is, like many of your pronouncements of fact-as-Happ-sees-it, inaccurate. Gross generalizations usually contain more error than fact.

In my experience, most of those who are leaving/have left California for other states have done or will do so reluctantly, especially if they are natives and of an age to have experienced their state's glory years. Regretably, those are far behind her. Most of us have the highest regard or we would not find leaving troubling and we do so from what we perceive to be necessity, much of it financial.

I absolutely reject your premise that because I am in the process of moving elsewhere I am representative of "selfish boors who are discarded for their lack of commitment & intelligent solutions." Ad hominem blatherings are usually false and are generally borne of an inability to articulate reasoning rebuttals. Of course, they could just as easily be a product of simple "stinkin' thinkin'. I gave 25 years of my life in state service and 12 in federal service always returning to California from the latter and spending the former, until retirement, trying to make this a better place.

I will feel some remorse in moving elsewhere. The California of my youth was indeed golden and magical. While it's true that home is where the heart is, it's equally true that once you've grown and moved on you can never go back. Having said that, be assured I will feel no guilt in moving to a place of lush landscape, rolling hills that stay green all year, large lakes, rushing streams, might rivers, four distinct yet not overly harsh seasons and where, with our current household income, we will have to spend about $20,000 less each year to maintain the same standard of living we have where we live now or almost any place in California.

I wasn't referring to you as a "sucker" btw. I respect you as a union-member & state employee who has served California. I honestly think you are making a mistake moving from your home & family since northern Sacramento valley is ideal for someone wanting lakes & rivers. My folks lived outside Oakhurst at over 2000' & occasionally observed snow. And if a person wants 4 seasons just move up higher into the Sierra Nevada.

It's some of the others on this thread who are "suckers" and can only wish they leave California ASAP

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by happ

I wasn't referring to you as a "sucker" btw. I respect you as a union-member & state employee who has served California. I honestly think you are making a mistake moving from your home & family since northern Sacramento valley is ideal for someone wanting lakes & rivers. My folks lived outside Oakhurst at over 2000' & occasionally observed snow. And if a person wants 4 seasons just move up higher into the Sierra Nevada.

It's some of the others on this thread who are "suckers" and can only wish they leave California ASAP

LOL! You still have it wrong, Happ. At one time I was a member of unions ONLY because Jerry Brown pandered to permit closed shops in state service. When that changed to union shops I took the opportunity to leave unions but still had to pay "fair share". Anything I had to do with the unions was done reluctantly, especially as state workers had received better and more consistent eraises and benefit increases before unionization. For my last 10 years I was a manager then senio0r manager so I neither had union membership nor paid fair share. To me that was like a nice raise on top of nice raises.

You must have missed the part where I said I could save $20,000 a year by moving with no loss in standard of living. I also won't have to put up with CA's lousy economy or zany politics anymore.

[D-Towner]

It sucks that some jack@sses could take power in a state like California and ruin it.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

LOL! You still have it wrong, Happ. At one time I was a member of unions ONLY because Jerry Brown pandered to permit closed shops in state service. When that changed to union shops I took the opportunity to leave unions but still had to pay "fair share". Anything I had to do with the unions was done reluctantly, especially as state workers had received better and more consistent eraises and benefit increases before unionization. For my last 10 years I was a manager then senio0r manager so I neither had union membership nor paid fair share. To me that was like a nice raise on top of nice raises.

You must have missed the part where I said I could save $20,000 a year by moving with no loss in standard of living. I also won't have to put up with CA's lousy economy or zany politics anymore.

[BlackShoe]

Lets be pragmatic and predict what is ahead,not what we would like to see happen,but what is most likely to happen.The primary is a year away,and candidates may drop out or choose to run at a late date but;Feinstein stays in Senate and Garamendi runs for the House.In a three way race Brown defeats Newsome and Villaraigoso.In the November general election Brown becomes the next governor.Not my choice,but the most likely scenario at this early date.Tom McClintock would make a superb governor,but I must sadly admit that in the present political climate he is too conservative to be elected.He likely will become a multi term congressman.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by northbayeric

Has Tom Campbell expressed an interest in running for Governor?

Yes, Campbell was the first Republican to announce his candidacy for governor. His social views are FAR better than McClintock's, and if he ran against Newsom I'd vote for him. Yes, he's economically very conservative, but socially quite liberal. Campbell's the Ron Paul of California, except that Campbell is pro-choice (Paul's pro-life but thinks that abortion should be up to the states.)

If so, he'd be OK, certainly a major step up from the Demo candidates and it'd be a total no-brainer in a Campbell-Newsom contest. But I'm not sure that Campbell would fare any better among the electorate than McClintock.

He would fare better - but alas, the (R) after one's name is a handicap. I wouldn't blame conservatives in California who run for office if they become Blue Dog Dems.

Second look at McClintock, eventually? I sure hope so!

McClintock's social views are totally out of line with the state. He has no chance of moving beyond being a career Congressman with the hopes of chairing a Committee when the GOP gets back control of the House (2014 at the earliest IMO).

[D-Towner]

Originally Posted by majoun

McClintock's social views are totally out of line with the state. He has no chance of moving beyond being a career Congressman with the hopes of chairing a Committee when the GOP gets back control of the House (2014 at the earliest IMO).

I hope you are wrong there Majoun.

[Quatermass]

Originally Posted by D-Towner

I hope you are wrong there Majoun.

2010 is looking good.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Snort

No, because he's a corrupt a-hole.

I second Snort's opinion.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by D-Towner

I hope you are wrong there Majoun.

Why? Do you hope that the Republicans disappear like Happ?

The reason why I'm guessing 2014 is that the GOP has shown no sign of remaking itself to adapt to new political realities, and is content with the same old stuff - the GOP's still stuck on Reagan much like the Democrats in the early 1980s was still stuck on FDR. It will take time for the party to remake itself and deal with the crazies within it. Michael Steele is no Howard Dean. Also, midterm elections usually see gains for the party that doesn't hold the White House (except for 1998 and 2002). Now, if the GOP takes a look at how David Cameron has remade the UK Tories as a more moderate party which will CERTAINLY take power in the next UK elections, they might have a clue as to how to reshape themselves. Barring an Obama administration that is a total failure AND a Crist nomination for president in 2012 (the Republican that Dems are most scared of), there'll be no GOP president until at least 2016. However, 2014 could be enough time for the Republican Party to remake and rebrand itself unless the situation I just described occurs.

You have to remember, I'm a Dem, but I'm capable of unbiased political analysis.