Did anyone watch the CA candidates' debate?

Ridiculously enough, I think its the second time I have posted that report, and I think even in response to the same thing!

 

Actually, I agree with you here, even as I disagree with many of McClintock's beliefs. He was the one candidate who came across as truly honest and trustworthy, and I hope he stays in the race.

Overall, after watching the entire debate, I was very impressed by the format and, to some degree, all five candidates. Sadly, most of you will see a few zingy clips of inane insults played on the news, but this debate was so much more solid and issue-related than any presidential debate I've seen. In fact, I believe any of our five candidates would have run circles around Gore or Bush in a debate.

Bustamante: No, the state's situation is not his fault. Our lt. governor has very little power. His performance in this debate, however, made him seem a little fake and patronizing. Also, he did not stand up effectively to the bullying WWF-style of Ahhhnold.

Ariana H: Shrill. Attacking Ahhnold so much will actually help him. Apparently, Californians don't care that he has the morality of a young feral hog, so get over it, lady. She also displayed a thin knowledge of actual finances at several turns. Still, I think she added a lot to the debate and I'm glad she's in the mix.

McClintock: Again, the most professional of the candidates at this debate. Honest, instills trust. I can't vote for him because I disagree with him categorically, but he's a good candidate, especially for a cross-eyed candidate who cannot properly arrange a necktie.

Camejo: True, he did not simplify the issues, because they are not simple. As much as greens chafe me, he was actually my favorite candidate. He showed considerable class and poise and honesty. I don't think he'd be good for business in California, but he's really the only candidate who honestly wants to help working people. (footnote: his description of California taxes is dead on. In my own modest gains since moving here, I have seen my effective rates decrease as I make more money. I've also got a few affluent friends who laugh at their state tax rates and shake their heads at the lack of fairness. So maybe Californians know more about their own taxes than people in, say, Alabama would know about California taxes. Ahem.)

Ahhnold S: Much better than I expected him to be. Very polished, with material prepared for almost every issue. I would never know that he hasn't been trained in debate. His big drawback is his WWF-style diction and his constant habit of interrupting everyone else to shout over them. Even though he was good, he had the least substance and fewest detailed suggestions of any of the candidates.

 

But at the expense of California taxpayers? I think not. I may sound heartless, but jeez, have you seen how many illegal aliens flood into Cali every single day? No wonder they are swimming in red ink.

And Sam, why is that you believe that no matter how much the "rich" (200 grand a year in California is nothing. In Georgia, that is rich, but in California, where the COL is much, much, much higher, you are not rich, you are middle class) pay (37 percent of their incomes) to both the Feds and state govts, never pay their fair share? Poor people don't pay any income tax anyway. What is their fair share, Sam....you tell me. Fifty percent? Sixty? You're going to tell me they are not entitled to enjoy more of the fruits of their labor?

If you ever read the book "The Millionare Next Door," by Thomas J. Stanley, PhD and William Danko, PhD, you'd find that statistically most millionares in this country are self-made men, not trust fund babies with a silver-spoon stuck in their mouths. I agree there are a lot of loopholes in the system, but if we went to a consumption based tax with few, if any loopholes, this would not be a problem. Progressive income taxes were among the many tenets of socialism touted by Karl Marx and should be done away with.

And California, with its sky-high workman's comp costs and higher-than-Tommy-Chong taxes is bleeding businesses left and right, mostly to Nevada, a truly liberatarian, laissee-faire paradise where the taxes are low and anything goes.

 

Is this an admission of error?

Well, as for your question, you see this statement?

I think it would be "fair", if the richest 1% paid at least 11.3%, the same as the bottom 20%. Yes, I do believe that would be quite Solomonic indeed!

By the way, I have an even BETTER libertarian paradise for you than Nevada: Iraq, think of it, no gun control, no big govt, no little govt, no taxman, no nothing. Sounds pretty cool to me.

 

This issue isn't as simple as a bunch of unwanted immigrants invading the state and having kids. The California economy has a high demand for cheap labor. Illegal immigrants meet this need, as they are the only group of Californians willing to work for jack-schit. As such a supply of cheap labor, illegals are the backbone of many California industries (agriculture, hotels, and restaurants).

If Californians don't want illegals in the country, then they need to stop employing them and be willing to accept that the price for many services (fruit, etc.) will increase due to increased labor costs.

In the time I've been living in California, I've grown sick of Californian hipocrasy on this issue.

 

Nice point, JeffB.

I feel the same way. The presence of illegal immigrants is really obvious and people gleefully employ them at every turn. Camejo called it a form of apartheid, and while that may be too strong a term, the truth remains: we have a whole class of people (making up over 50% of the combined workforce in the three sectors you mention) working for substandard pay and simultaneously unable to qualify for health care or driver's licenses.

So, we either have to get harsh and quit hiring them, or we have to treat them as we would anyone else working their ass off in our state.

 

Arnold sucked. He didn't say anything specific. He regurgitated the same bumber-sticker slogans hae has been spewing this whole campaign. He even got some of his "statistics" wrong. He backed down from challenges to his statements and his only strategy for rebuttal was to out-talk and be louder than the other candidates (and, of course, to attack Mr. Whipple and Huffington). He came across as a guy who expects to get in office due to his image and name.

Bustamante comes across as a smug, slimy. Mr. Whipple. He seems too much a part of the bureaucratic methods of Sac-town to even think about solutions that go against the bureaucratic grain. He is correct about the budgeting issues regarding the prison Huffington called him on.

In Cali, voters keep passing initiatives--bond measures--which dictate exactly how money is to be spent. That money explicitly cannot be spent for any other purposes. So while, you can halt construction on that prison, the bond measure which funds it states that then the money borrowed to fund it disappears. It isn't just the politicians in Cali spending money like crazy. Its the nutty voters, too.

Huffington lost a lot of points in my eyes. She spent too much time on Arnold and not enough on the distinct issues she usually articulates so well.

McClintock wasn't a speck on my radar. I am not a conservative, but he wins points just for being honest, principled and real. Unlike, the Terminator, Mr. Whipple and Huffington, he was specific while being pragmatic, ambitious in his specific ideas regarding the budget while being realistic. As much as I like the guy, I can't vote for him as governor. But I would like to see him have a high position (away from social policy) in somebody's cabinet.

Camejo, the guy who has the least chance of whinning, along with McClintock, was the most focused, respectful, intelligent cadidate of the debate. He articulated his politics and his policy. He didn't waste time attacking others. He was specific. There were no bumper-sticker/McDonald's slogans. He articulated the complexity of California's problems and suggested realistic means of dealing with them. He didn't "talk down" to the voters. I like that. Too bad most people will just see that he is Green party--and not Republican or Democrat--or not slogany or touchy feely enough and opt not to vote for him.

It saddens me that in our winner take all system, guys like Camejo fall by the wayside, while the folks who pull the wool over your eyes like Davis and Arnold are the ones who win.

 

The only issue I could agree with most people on is the driver's license issue. The DL is used as a form of identification and carries with it the assumption of one being a citizen, etc. Without a background check, the license would be a security flaw as it doesn't truly validate identity (how the hell do validate the identity of an illegal immigrant without documentation?) as much as it validates that one can drive.

However, all we need to do is mark the immigrants licenses in such an obvious way (through color or a different license style) so as to notify authorities that this is a license and not a form of identification.

 

Uh, if you mean Gary Coleman when you say Arnold, maybe. Since Californians elected the insufferable Gray Davis twice, the best option is to say NO to this inane, politically motivated, 3rd world RECALL! Has he broken the law? No. Does he suck? Yes. What should we do? Not vote for his ass in the next real election.

If you can recall elected officials because they screw up the budget, what does that mean for GW Bush? And let me state categorically, even though I don't enjoy Davis's or Bush's leadership, I would never move to recall or impeach either of them unless they at least broke a freaking law.

addendum:
Issa, the millionaire Republican who really got this movement going, has actually stated that he will vote NO on the recall if McCrosseyes and Ahhnold both stay in the race... Huh? You must remove Gray Davis at all costs -- er, only if you can get a Republican in office? That's disgusting. If he's incompetant, and that's your motivation, stick to it. Issa has admitted that he simply does not want a democrat governing and he will stoop to any depraved level to pursue his goals.

 

Because it wastes even more money. Because it sinks our political climate into the Jerry Springer show. Because now we've opened to door to recall every candidate who doesn't fit our party, and maybe the stupid democrats will line up to do this next. Because Davis does not suck any more than the average politician. Because this is not even about him sucking (see my addendum above).

Enjoy it if you want, SJC, but Ahhnold and his rice-paper-thin understanding of the issues do not belong in our highest office here. He should go through a real primary and a real election to be governor. By the way, I think Claude Van Damme (no, not German, but Ahhhhhnald is Austrian anyway) should run your local government.

 

then you need to amend your constitution. wise or unwise, the procedure is there...and it's not the same as an impeachment. it's really more like a vote of no-confidence, as best i can tell.

 

You're correct, Max. I hope you can sympathize with my frustration. Issa's about face was one of the most cynical things I've seen in a while.

And yes, JER-RY was the major of Cincy. I don't think he ran up any especially big deficits either. And no politician has addressed the "I'm not yours no mo but your new girl dresses like a ho and besides she's really a bo" demographic so passionately.

 

Well, I guess that sums up modern American politics, for better or worse. ... And I think JER-RY was a democrat.

 

Yes at the expense of taxpayers. Prices and labor are down because of those immigrants. They account for something like 40% of hotel workers, I can't remember the exact figure but I believe it was about 20-30% of construction and on and on. I live in California, and I wish everyone in the state including children of immigrants who are here illegally. I don't value the average guys taxes more than I value the health of children.