To claim that the branches are entirely separate is a little simplistic. As a main player, if not the main player in the State's Republican Party, the governor sets priorities for the party, including legislative. There is also the 'give-and-take' between the executive and legislative branches. It is true the the public was strongly supportive of the governor's actions, but sometimes leaders take actions that are in the right, not necessarily popular. Davis worked to negate some of what Wilson did (although please don't deduce that I think that Davis is a leader...). With the popular support for Wilson's actions, I imagine that the democrats in the legistlature thought that defeating Wilson's bill could prove too costly in votes. The bills would probably never have been drafted if it wasn't for Wilson's efforts. An interesting roundtable on American immigration here. Experts disagree on the cost/benefit of immigration (too many assumptions = result surprisingly consistent with one's own view... ) http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/forum/96nov/96novint.htm
And they never would've passed without the complicity of those in the Legislature who were apparently unwilling to stand on their own principles and vote against Legislation they disgareed with (either that or they simply didn't disagree with them and voted their conscience). While the Governor provides leadership and a bully pulpit that can be effective in getting things done. The fact remains that he, alone, did not legislate anything in California during his term as Governor, and therefore, the entire blame cannot be laid at his feet. Pete Wilson didn't legislate against anything by his lonesome. It's disingenuous to ignore the required contributions of others in getting these sorts of things passed, and (if you ask me), letting those who were complicit off the hook when they shouldn't be let off the hook. If a Legislator voted for these laws because they agreed with it, that needs to be brought out. If a Legislator voted for these laws because they were so weak kneed that they refused to do what they normally think is right, then that needs to be brought out, too. Don't know why they should be given a free pass.
MrPaige, who said Pete Wilson was the "only one" responsible for the bill. No one did. But to deny either that he didn't have some role in getting momentum for the bill and didn't make his position clear on the issue I think is misleading (I don't think this is what you are trying to say but not sure). I agree with you the Pete Wilson wasn't the only supporter. As I said before Cal is often very polarized on immigration issues, and no small proportion of the population in general or politicians (especially in Southern Cal) supported the bill. But Pete Wilson sure tried to politically capitalize on the issue and be an forcefull advocate for the bill--what more do you need to know than where he stood on the issue and the vigor he approached it. It doesn't really matter to me whether he wholeheartly supported the bill or he was a capitalist simply trying to use anti-immigrant sentiment further his political career by being linked to the bill--I suspect the latter but really don't know.
let's see, Cohen said: Just a rebound from a previous Republican governor who legislated heavily against illegal immigrants.. Hmmmm. It sure looks like somebody said Wilson was the only one responsible for what has happened in the past in regard to illegal immigrants. I never said he didn't have a significant role. I said it cannot be laid entirely at his feet. I even went into great detail to note that those complicit in getting those things passed (including Democrats) shouldn't be let off the hook for their actions by saying that today was Just a rebound from a previous Republican governor who legislated heavily against illegal immigrants. The statement I responded to did lay it entirely at his feet whether you choose to acknowledge what was said or not. You can pretend that something different was implied, but reading that statement, the previous Republican Governor (Wilson) is the only one mentioned as having legislated heavily against immigrants. I don't need to know anything else about Pete Wilson. I never denied he was for these bills. He was never a politician I cared for, either, and I've not defended any of his actions at all. I merely stated the simple truth that he alone did not get these things done out there and to say that what is going on now is Just a rebound from a previous Republican governor who legislated heavily against illegal immigrants is being disingenuous because the Governor alone, no matter who he is, cannot do anything all by his lonesome. That's the only point I've made. I can't believe people want to argue that fact so bad. But I guess that's how the debates tend to go on this board. What is actually said is ignored (in this case, both the original post which you obviously didn't read based on the first line of our admonition to me, and my posts which talked heavily about how not only Wilson is to blame but also those complicit who shouldn't be let off the hook) and responses are crafted to twist what the person on the other side of the debate said and responded to. Granted, I chose to respond to something that was actually said. You've chosen a different tack and choose to pretend those things weren't said and chose to paint my posts as something different than what was said. I know you don't lack reading and comprehension skills. You're obviously very educated and intelligent, so I don't understand why you would insist on not reading the posts and responding to them in an honest and straightforward manner. But fine. If it will end this debate, I'll give in. It was all Pete Wilson's fault. When he was Governor, the Legislature ceded their power and the Republican Governor was able to legislate heavily against immigrants all by his lonesome. No one else to to blame. It's all Pete Wilson's fault. As a matter of fact, everything that happened (as long as it was bad. Good stuff happened because of someone else) in California during his term was entirely his fault. No one else was even involved. So everything good that happens now can be Just a rebound from a previous Republican governor who legislated heavily against illegal immigrants No skin off my nose either way. I never liked Wilson (He always struck me as a Country Club Republican who only believed in what he felt would gain him some electoral advantage rather than having principled opinions that he stood by regardless of public opinion), but I guess I wanted my dislike of him to be more honest and take into account that saying that what is going on now is Just a rebound from a previous Republican governor who legislated heavily against illegal immigrants is going overboard in trying to blame one guy you don't like. Now I know bettter.
No, I did not. Any half-wit knows that a State government is not dictatorship, so I'm sure that you understand that ( ). I shouldn't need to state the obvious. And I never used the term 'only'. Wilson is the politician most responsible for that legislation. It never would have happened without him. To imply that it would have, or that other parties are just as responsible as he was is what's disingenuous. Where's the rule that states I need to mention ALL culpable parties? Would I find it in 'mrpaige's rules of political discussion'? I mentioned the person most responsible. Nobody refutes that, even Wilson. If you'd like to go into an analysis of all parties in the matter, and why they voted the way they did, get to it. If some Democrat in the legislature voted for this in return for a Republican vote on financial support for Planned Parenthood, I couldn't care less. In summary: 1. It required a law. 2. The law would not have happened without Wilson. So, in effect, he had it legislated.
