national opinion

Monday Column
Carol Platt Liebau

[go to Liebau index]

Latest Column:
Stopping the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do

Subscribe to CRO Alerts
Sign up for a weekly notice of CRO content updates.

Jon Fleischman’s
The premier source for
California political news

Michael Ramirez

editorial cartoon

Do your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today

CRO Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura Ingraham

Hugh Hewitt
Eric Hogue
Sharon Hughes
Frank Pastore
[Radio Home]
















a running commentary by our trusted california contributors...

CRO Blog archive index

The Bear Flag

National Issues Blogging at theOneRepublic's Blog [tOR Blog]

[12/30/04 Thursday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 6:05 am [link]
Breaking News on Re-districting -"Fair Districts Now"...
I'm hearing that Ted Costa, of the People's Advocate ('Father of the Recall' and now the re-districting initiative), has been asked to change his 're-districting initiative' one more time.

Sources tell me that Costa has been asked to change the date that the initiative - if passed - would take effect. They (those who are against such an initiative, both Dems and GOP members) want to move the date from 2006 up to 2012!

Ted Costa has said "no"!

So Ted's initiative stands alone (currently) and is continuing to gather signatures to make the April 29th deadline for a 'special election' ballot likely to come this Fall in California.

Things to watch for...

1. What will Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger say about 're-districting' in his "State of the State Address" on January 5th? Will Arnold offer his support for the initiative, the way it reads currently?

2. If Arnold supports, will the Democrats start a drive for their own 're-districting initiative', one that will offer an active date of 2012 rather than 2006?

What is the fuss surrounding the date about?

The next 'mid-term election' comes in 2006. The Dems know this initiative will pass with ease and they are trying to save the kingdom?

There are also some Republicans who like the safe districts of the "gerrymandered kingdom", so they want to push it off to 2012.

Stay tuned, this will become a HUGE item if the governor mentions it during his SOS come January 5th. [Hogue Blog - email:]

[12/29/04 Wednesday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 5:03 am [link]
New Tax? (It's in the Bag!) Time to attack businesses again...

Next month, an obscure San Francisco commission is likely to approve a resolution asking city officials to impose a first-in-the-nation fee on each bag given to shoppers at major grocery stores.

To outsiders, the proposal to levy a 17-cents-per-bag charge may seem unconventional if not downright wacky.

San Francisco wouldn't be the first place to take up the issue. A handful of countries - Ireland, Denmark and Switzerland among them - already require fees on plastic grocery bags, noted supporters. A few other locales, such as Germany, Sweden and 30 towns in Alaska, have banned them outright.

Talk about a real business killer, typical for liberals living inside of "Blue America".

So, you're a mother with two kids, you need to go to the grocery store and purchase two gallons of milk, Tied laundry detergent and four 2-liters of soda pop.

You need a bag to carry from the store to your car, then from the car to your house and kitchen. Given the average 'bag boy/girl' at the grocery checkout, this equates 3-4 plastic bags - if you're carrying the Tied by its handle without a bag.

So, for the mother on tight income is the Bay Area, this is an extra "51-cents" each time you make the purchase. And we all know how Californians like to "spot shop" at the grocery store.

17-cents a bag; portions will go to the store for re-usable grocery bags (will you have to buy these?) and a portion will go to the local government to cover the extra costs of recycling the plastic (or even paper) bags.

Do we trust governments to use the 8-cents per bag wisely? Will there be an increase on this 'grocery bag tax' in the future? Remember, these are liberals who love to tax those who are evil - those who want to feed their kids and use petroleum bags that kill the environment. [Hogue Blog - email:]

[12/28/04 Tuesday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 8:05 am [link]
Arnold Misrepresented by German Translation: All the excitement was about nothing...Governor Arnold was misrepresented by the English to German, then back to English translation. Congrats to Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee for his article expressing the same concern that I shared the day of the statement's release.

This is what Schwarzenegger said in the first transcript of the interview; which was conducted in English:

" I think that right now the Republican Party is all the way from the right to the center. And the Democratic Party is all the way from the left to the center. And I like the Republican Party to cross that center line. Keep it to the right where it is, but I mean cross over that center line a little bit, because that would take immediately away 5 percent from the Democrats and be home free for good. That's the trick."

Hujer's German-language story, including that passage, was published in his newspaper on Saturday. International news agencies picked up the quotation, translating it back into English. The version that the Associated Press distributed quoted Schwarzenegger, inaccurately, as saying he wanted Republicans to move "a little to the left."

" I would like the Republican Party to cross this line, move a little further left and place more weight on the center. This would immediately give the party 5 percent more votes without it losing anything elsewhere," read the AP version, which was also distributed Saturday.

In an otherwise slow period for political news, the AP's story sparked a little action on the television talk show circuit, with two Fox News shows using it as a lead item Monday to generate talking-head filler and extract some ain't-it-awful comments from right-wing commentators.

Notice what Arnold said inside of the quotes:

" Keep it to the right where it is, but I mean cross over that center line a little bit, because that would take immediately away 5 percent from the Democrats and be home free for good."

Moving or Reaching to the Left? There has a solid debate surrounding the Arnold Schwarzenegger quote and his "implied meaning". The Executive Editor of the Sacramento Union, Ken Grubbs, offered this retort to my blog comment:

Left a Little Bit The AP, Eric, might have inserted the word "left" in its translation, but when Arnold says the Democrats have the left to the center, and the Republicans the right to the center, then advises the Republicans to cross over the center, then, logically, that means he's urging the GOP to go left. Same thing.

Now, if there are a few teeny issues on which the left might have gotten things right, free speech issues for example, or sensible immigration policies, then it might just make sense to cross over and achieve that elusive majority. I fear, however, that the governor really wants to keep abortion legal. If so, the party abandons principle, loses its soul. Somebody ought to press Arnold on exactly what he means before we reflexively defend him.

Merry Christmas everybody. What we celebrate today, of course, makes the slaughter of a fetus unthinkable.

My Reply: I don't doubt that Governor Schwarzenegger would like to remove the debate surrounding 'abortion' and 'stem cell research' from Republican campaigns. I'm sure he would like to see a warmer embrace to the homosexual lifestyle by the California GOP as well.

But Arnold has not demonstrated such and I refuse to read into this "erroneously transcribed quote" content that my friends on the right are 'tripping' over. I don't read 'moving' here, I see a governor who understands what it means to gain a majority - he's looking for 'reach'.

Ken, is it possible to 'reach' to the center-left, without crossing over or moving the party core?

Arnold said he doesn't want to MOVE the party, just incorporate more center-left voters and members. Is it leftward movement, or just a leftward reach?

What did Governor Ronald Reagan do to incorporate so many "Reagan Democrats" into his voting circles? Didn't he 'reach out to them' with a tone and tenor (and content) that brought them into the GOP tent?

Is Arnold wrong for trying to mimic the same type of 'reach'? [Hogue Blog - email:]

[12/24/04 Friday]

[Nick Winter-administrative editor] 8:14 am [link]
UnPC Wishes: We at tRO/CRO wish you a Merry Christmas!!! There! We said it! Christmas! Christmas! ... Can’t wait to get a cease and desist order from the ACLU…

[Bill Leonard, contributor, Member CA Board of Equalization] 8:13 am [link]
'Tis the season: “And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” --- Luke 2:10-11

Merry Christmas!

I was interested in a recent Newsweek poll that showed 93% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ lived. Eighty-two percent of respondents agreed that Christ was God or the Son of God, including 35% of non-Christians. Sixty-seven percent of respondents say they believe the Biblical story of Christmas. Consider all of that when you catch yourself saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” Most of us do believe, do acknowledge Christ’s divinity and thus have cause of celebrate his birth. Let us not be ashamed of the revelation we have been given, but stand as a witness to His greatness, His creation, and His glory—this season and always. God Bless you and Merry Christmas! [Leonard Letter]

[12/23/04 Thursday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 5:05 am [link]
Sacramento Bee Stings Kevin Shelley: Three months ago we said California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley should resign. The case for his departure was compelling then, and it is overwhelming today.

Last week, the Bureau of State Audits released a damning report that documents not only gross mismanagement but also what could be criminal violations in Shelley's misuse of federal Help America Vote Act funds.

State auditors say that because Shelley's office spent federal funds for activities not authorized under the law, the federal government may end up requiring California to repay millions of dollars.

Even Shelley has acknowledged that mistakes were made, but that's not good enough. He should resign, and if he does not, the Legislature should impeach him.There was $81 million in HAVA money to oversee. Among other things, auditors found evidence that Shelley's office deliberately evaded financial controls and competitive bidding requirements when it dispensed $3.3 million of that money.

The office used $230,400 in HAVA funds for contracts with consultants for get-out-the vote efforts that were not authorized either under federal or state law. In one case, Shelley used federal funds to pay a politically well-connected law firm in San Francisco to write speeches for him. A partner in that firm is the unpaid treasurer for Shelley's political campaign fund.

While friends and political cronies received hundreds of thousands of dollars in HAVA funds on an expedited basis, auditors found that Shelley delayed payments to county elections officials. The counties urgently needed money to train poll workers, educate voters and replace outmoded voting equipment, the very purposes for which Congress allocated HAVA funds in the first place.

The report also states that Shelley charged more than $1 million in office salary costs to HAVA, but failed to document whether his employees worked on HAVA-related projects. In many cases no time sheets or other personnel activity reports were provided.In some cases where such documents were provided, the workers and contractors reported participating in partisan political activities, which are strictly forbidden under state and federal law.

The devastating audit comes in the midst of unrelated but ongoing criminal investigations into how state grant funds allegedly ended up in Shelley's campaign coffers. Shelley is also the subject of numerous employee verbal harassment complaints.

He has shown himself to be unfit for public office. He should resign.

We're waiting State Senator Don Perata and Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez...will you defend him, or will you do what is right?

For Quackenbush, it took just 30 days for the Republican Party to send Chuck to Hawaii.

Are the Democrats protecting Shelley for the purpose of using him to 'delay' any attempt for a "special election" this year? Another case of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", this time it is Kevin Shelley. [Hogue Blog - email:]

[12/22/04 Wednesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic & theOneRepublic] 6:03 am [link]
Arnold feints left: Hm. Here, it appears that Governor Schwarzenegger has suggested that the Republican Party move leftward in order to attract new voters [and see Hogue below].

With all due respect to the Governator, that would be a mistake. As noted here, Arnold didn't win because he was a social moderate -- he won because he was a fiscal conservative. In addition, with the charisma and widespread popularity he's enjoyed from his film career, he could have beaten Gray Davis just as easily, had he been a social conservative.

But most significantly, take a look at what happens when a country's conservative party abandons the field on social issues -- like in England. There, the Tories have seemingly become the permanent minority party, because they have deprived themselves of the social issues; the social issues are what provides a reason for blue collar traditionalists to ignore the class warfare and redistributionist come-ons of the liberal party in any country.

Clearly, Arnold would like to be president. For him to become President (aside from a constitutional amendment allowing a naturalized US citizen to run), the Republican party would have to come to a consensus that it should move left. So Arnold's idea would be good for him -- just not for the rest of us. [Liebau Blog]

[12/21/04 Tuesday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 7:05 am [link]
Schwarzenegger's Leftward Movement? We all need to relax about Arnold's 'move to the left' comments. I've had two organizations release two statements today, answering Arnold Schwarzenegger's comments made to a German news organization last week.

Here is a statement from Karen England of CRI (Capital Resource Institute):

"Schwarzenegger's statements that the GOP party would not lose its base if it embraces gay marriage and abortion rights show extreme arrogance and total ignorance concerning the values and dedication of the party's core constituents," said Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute, a pro-family public policy organization in California. "Schwarzenegger has spent too much time in Hollywood. He needs to start mingling more with mainstream Californians."

"We are outraged that Schwarzenegger has the audacity to misspeak for the millions of Republicans in this country who believe that abortion is murder and that the life of a child should come before the mere convenience of a woman," said England. "We are outraged that Schwarzenegger would turn his back on two-thirds of Californians (many Democrats included) who voted just four short years ago to protect traditional marriage in this state. By embracing gay marriage, Schwarzenegger shows that he is not simply in the 'center' on this social issue - he is, actually, far to the left."

"If Schwarzenegger thinks that the majority of the GOP base will stick with the Republican Party on fiscal issues alone, then he has a lot to learn about the makeup of his own party."

Then there is Randy Thomasson of CCCF (Campaign for California Children and Families):

"This was not a smart statement," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. "The Republican Party needs to strengthen its conservative, pro-family values, not water them down. Likewise, the liberal Democrat Party needs to change direction and go right."

"Why are the majority of Democrat politicians trashing marriage, forcing taxpayers to pay for unlimited abortions, attacking the Boy Scouts, promoting homosexuality and transsexuality ad nauseam, and undermining religious freedom and parental rights at every turn?" asked Thomasson. "Arnold says 'move left'? That's a very bad idea.

If the Republican Party abandons family values and moves to the left, it will quickly become indistinguishable from the anti-family Democrat Party."

Here is what Arnold was reported as saying:

"I would like the Republican Party to cross this line, move a little further left and place more weight on the center," he was quoted as saying. "This would immediately give the party 5% more votes without it losing anything elsewhere."

First, I don't read where Governor Schwarzenegger is encouraging the Republican Party to support homosexual lifestyles or same-sex marriage. Yes, Arnold is a Hollywood Governor, but even he understands the radical (politically immoral) nature of such an idea for the GOP.

Second, the truth still hurts...California is a very liberal state. For the Republican Party to 'win elections' and have the opportunity to lead and legislate, there must be some movement to the 'center' - but this does NOT mean you have to move the entire party to the left.

Why can't we just pull up those stakes to the left of the 'big tent' and stretch them out toward the 'center' a tad...bringing in some of the 'center-right' voters in California.

We don't have to move the core values, or the party platform...just grow the tent and stretch it left to bring more into the party.

Simply controlling our "tone and tenor" when it comes to issues like 'illegal immigration' can invite more to the GOP. Stop the 'knuckle dragging' parades and charades, stop beating the 'pots and pans' so we can have a real dialogue on solutions rather than initiatives that easily label us racist.

Grow the population in the GOP and stretch the tent...why is this so bad? [Hogue Blog - email:]

[12/17/04 Friday]

[Bill Leonard, contributor, Member CA Board of Equalization] 8:13 am [link]
O Christmas Tree:
Welcome back to the Legislature. I remember the excitement and high hopes of swearing-in day. As part of the day’s celebrations, I invite legislators and all guests to step out to the west front of the State Capitol to admire the state Christmas tree. Its presence is a testimony to the tenacity and perseverance of one legislator, the late Senator Pete Knight. Senator Knight demanded the change in title from “ holiday tree” to “Christmas tree” for years, but he was ignored by Gray Davis. Before he died and during the recall election, Senator Knight made this request of Arnold Schwarzenegger: “When you are Governor, I want you to light the Christmas tree and quit this phony political correctness of calling it a holiday tree.” The Governor-to-be made that promise and last week he kept that promise to his deceased friend. [Leonard Letter]

[12/16/04 Thursday]

[Bill Leonard, contributor, Member CA Board of Equalization] 12:13 am [link]
PERS Board Needs Counseling
It was widely reported last week that Sean Harrigan, union advocate and president of California’s Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) since 2003, got the axe. Harrigan and State Treasurer Phil Angelides (who also serves on the board) saw themselves as chief-harassers of American companies that failed to implement their brand of enlightened liberalism. Harrigan was perceived as using his power to punish supermarkets that fought with labor unions. However, the Constitution describes the role of the PERS board differently (Article XVI, Section 17b):

“The members of the retirement board of a public pension or retirement system shall discharge their duties with respect to the system solely in the interest of, and for the exclusive purposes of providing benefits to, participants and their beneficiaries, minimizing employer contributions thereto, and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the system. A retirement board's duty to its participants and their beneficiaries shall take a precedence over any duty.”

Clearly, the board's duty to the participants in the PERS retirement system is to maximize the returns of the fund and defray costs to the program. But Angelides and his allies on the board have corrupted this duty to justify the crude wielding of the PERS fund as a hammer to beat on companies that do not share their politics. This is a sick perversion of what they are supposed to be doing. Over the past three years, the PERS fund has lost $27 billion and needs $2.7 billion this year from the general fund because of the clownish antics of Harrigan, Angelides and their allies on the board. I am surprised that state employee unions are not up in arms about it.

Harrigan was quoted last spring saying, “All we're asking companies to do is align themselves with those they serve -- shareholders.” If Orwell were alive today, he might applaud this newspeak of the Brave New World. [Leonard Letter]

[12/15/04 Wednesday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:15 am [link]
Those Who Bang Pots and Pans The amazing portion of this boycott is the statement made by the protestors:

Pro-immigrant groups urged motorists to avoid buying gas every Monday through next year or until lawmakers allowed illegal immigrants to apply for licenses.

This is where the Republican Party should find its "tone and tenor" when addressing this issue. The GOP is the party of immigration, legal immigration. We need to speak in bold defense of those who came and earned 'merit' by assimilation in our American culture.

Warning: We dare not stoop to the level of the "Pots and Pan Bangers"; those who desire to use ridiculous rancor, radical 'rantings' and rhetoric that plays into the Democrats racism propaganda.

I'm guest hosting for Roger Hedgecock on Clear Channel's "News Radio 600 KOGO" all this week. Today I simply mention this boycott and read the portion I offered above...the place lit up like Arnold's Christmas Tree at the Capitol!

Big surprise, huh?

And to the credit of the San Diego folks, most (not all), but most understand the goal.

Win the majority and create legislation that can speak to ALL of the illegal immigration issues, not just a single ballot initiative that focuses on one.

The props are great, but they will NOT solve a majority of the issues that illegal immigration is causing in California or for the country.

The most politically damaging issues in the country right now are 'illegal immigration' and 'same-sex marriage'.

Gay marriage hurts liberals, because it looks like they're pandering to a small group, and invoking civil rights protections in a way a lot of people, including traditional Democrats groups, don't buy into. Conservatives can then use the argument to paint liberals as anti-family.

(This makes me 'stupid-happy', because I believe it to be true; but I digress.)

If we (Republicans) are not careful..."illegal immigration" can (will) hurt conservatives, because liberals can EASILY paint it as a 'racist issue'...remember Prop 187?

In the end it is the 'tone and the tenor' of the message offered by the Republican Party. Can we find the wisdom to represent ourselves above the rancor and win the legislative seats to create the legislation to finally deal with all of the 'multi-faceted features' of illegal immigration in California?

Advice: Don't follow the bangers of 'pots and pans'...turn away from the noise and tune into the clear message of mature leadership. [Hogue Blog]

[12/14/04 Tuesday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:11 am [link]
Bill's Agenda Lawsuit I'm still trying to figure this one out...

"Lockyer, a Democrat, announced (last) Wednesday that he would fight an amendment to the new federal spending bill that penalizes states for keeping abortions available to all women."

Let's apply some "Government 101" to this lawsuit...

We elect congressional leaders (representative republic) who determine that our federal tax dollars should come with a 'choice' when it involves medical practices and personal involvement with abortion...and the state's attorney general wants to sue this decision? I thought he was 'pro-choice'?

A state's attorney general wants to sue the federal government over the federal government's medical apportionment - who does Bill think he is?

How often do we hear the liberals scream 'state's rights' when in includes 'weed' and medicinal practices?

Isn't this a federal decision related to spending federal dollars? If you want to FORCE your employees to abort the babies or offer the RU486 pills, then don't take the federal dollars. Seems simple.

Looks like Bill Lockyer is suing for his personal agenda rather than the state's letter or 'common sense' of law.

What is Bill Lockyer running for in 2006? [Hogue Blog - email:]

[12/13/04 Monday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:02 am [link]
Baghdad Bob Returns to the Battle "Baghdad Bob" Mulholland comes out from under his rock and returns to his wonderful rancor...seems like just yesterday he was sounding off on something called a recall.

I'm thinking Bob and the Dems are very concerned about the completion of the recall with the 're-districting reform' on the horizon. Great to hear from you again Bob.

"Baghdad Bob's" latest offering...

Assemblymember Todd Spitzer (R-Orange), a member of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Chapter of the Anti Defamation League, issued the following statement today in response to a press release from Bob Mulholland, political advisor to the California Democratic Party, which called Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “Hitler-esque” for what Mulholland refers to as a “power grab” to reform how legislative and congressional districts are drawn in the state.

“The California Democratic Party should publicly admonish their political advisor, Bob Mulholland, for using inflammatory references like ‘Hitler-esque’ to describe Governor Schwarzenegger, who is of Austrian decent.

“While it is appropriate to have open discourse about policy issues that affect California voters, Mulholland’s language is extremely offensive. Using words like ‘Hitler-esque’ and ‘racist’ goes beyond mere name-calling,” said Assemblymember Spitzer.

Earlier this week, the Democratic Legislative Latino Caucus held a press conference denouncing Republicans as “racist” for opposing drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants in California.

“Remarks like these do not help solve anyone’s problems. Mulholland’s comments stand only to hinder bipartisanship during this, the first week of the 2005-06 legislative session.

“Bob Mulholland owes a public apology to Governor Schwarzenegger and to all Californians for a terrible misuse of a characterization that should be reserved for only the most heinous acts of misconduct,” concluded Spitzer.

When you don't have an intelligent response to the debate you 'name call' and scream 'racist'. Oldest liberal trick in the book...refusing to engage in the debate! Been there; Republicans just want to debate the issues, while liberals desire to throw the mud and attack the person - it is usual, but it should never be ignored! [Hogue Blog - email:]

[12/8/04 Wednesday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:09 am [link]
What is McClintock Thinking? California State Sen. Tom McClintock, (R-Thousand Oaks), introduced a major reform package Monday designed to force lawmakers to pass a budget on time and limit spending.

McClintock wants to force the Legislature to pass an on-time budget by June 15 or face the consequence of the governor's budget winning approval without legislative changes. But he would also lower the threshold to pass a budget to a simple majority, down from the current two-thirds requirement.

What a HUGE mistake Senator! What's up?

Although his legislation would still ask the for the "Super Majority" two-thirds for taxes and fees in the budget process, why is he offering up the state to the 'blue cities and counties' when it comes to the budget?

McClintock, who is a history buff, must understand that the initial purpose of the 'super majority' was to protect southern California from the highly populated northern portions - this reveals the age of this constitutional law.

Now, removing the two-thirds vote on the budget offers the budget's contents to the majority party vote and the highly populated areas of San Fran and Los Angeles - urban California would run over suburbia in the Golden State.

What is he thinking? [Hogue Blog]

[12/7/04 Tuesday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:02 am [link]
Who was Texas First Fabian? Assembly Speaker, Fabian Nunez, released an opinion column in the Sacramento Bee last week, blaming the Republicans and Arnold Schwarzenegger for imitating Texas when it comes to the initiative to reform the process of re-districting in California.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, who was Texas first?

Let's go back to 2000, the year of the census returns. After the Clinton Administration was determined to play with the rules of gathering census calculations, we finally had the process performed and upheld with its integrity (somewhat) attached.

In the end, California had a BIG increase in population and a very large majority of liberal leadership in Sacramento. There was a deal behind closed door, the Republicans wanted to help their cause with Congressional Districts - knowing it was 'something' over nothing with the Democrat leadership at a time of a national census report.

The Democrats gerrymandered the statewide districts for 'safe elections' in 2002 and 2004. (They never expected a recall election in 2003)

My questions again...who played Texas before Texas? Answer: Sacramento's Democrat leadership in 2000!

Now we'll watch the Democrats play the victim over the efforting of the "Fair Districts Now" initiative, and others soon to follow. Playing the victim - something the Democrats are very talented in doing I might add. They're already calling this effort (of initiative to reform the process of drawing the statewide districts) a power grab.

Next they'll start painting any pressure on Kevin Shelley as a plot to remove him from office so that Governor Schwarzenegger can appoint his own replacement.

(With the re-districting process gaining momentum, watch for the Democrats to circle the wagons around 'embarrassment number one' - Sect of State Kevin Shelley.)

If we have a "special election" in 2005, the Democrats will desire their own 'puppet' to deal with the election process, especially an election that has an initiative on the ballot reforming re-districting in California.

The Democrats 'own this guy'...Kevin Shelley.

With federal investigations, state personnel issues and lawsuits...all of the dirt that has fallen around Kevin Shelley...the Dems can throw him over the railing at a moment's notice. And don't think they haven't let him know this thus far!

During the recall, Shelley ran a clean election, but his office staff was full of Bill Jones staffers. They would have gone to the press if there were any shenanigans with the recall process - and Shelley knew this.

Now the good ship 'SOS Shelley' has purged those Bill Jones staffers and Shelley has placed his own shipmates onboard.

Expect Dirty Tricks...from the Secretary of State's Office during a 'special election' in 2005. Kevin Shelley is owned by the Democrats...owned body and soul by the party and he will perform to save his career.

Republican's first plan of action should be removing Kevin Shelley from office as soon as possible, so we can move toward a special election and more reform for this state that is still in the hands of the liberal Democrat's 'web of control'! [Hogue Blog]

[12/6/04 Monday]

[Found in the ebag-Family Research Council] 12:11 am [link]
Waxman at work:
[ah, how our lovely representatives will say anything for their favorite special interest group...ED]

In what is becoming an annual holiday tradition, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), using taxpayer funds, released a "report" attacking sound scientific practices, with no regard for the lives that could be put at risk. Last year Congressman Waxman, in his position as ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee, had his staff compile a mistake-laden report accusing the Bush administration of politicizing science. In an ironic move, this year's Waxman Report attacks abstinence education in the schools, and it would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. Waxman attacks abstinence curriculums, displaying his disdain for protecting our youth. At one point, his report disputes any connection between abortion and infertility, ignoring a Washington Post story from February 2003 that directly links the two. The Waxman Report goes on to state that condom use is effective 97 percent of the time. This figure is deadly wrong, and dangerous to our nation's youth and women. There are numerous sexually transmitted diseases that condoms do not prevent, including the human papilloma virus, the leading cause of cervical cancer. If Rep. Waxman truly wanted an objective evaluation of abstinence-until-marriage education, he would have called for a bipartisan study rather than release a biased report written by his own untrained staff.

[12/2/04 Thursday]

[Nick Winter-administrative editor] 12:11 am [link]
Driver Licenses for Illegals... It’s Back... Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) stopped the 911 Commission Bill in the Congress because it didn’t close up the issue of driver licenses for illegals... But, like that weed in your garden that just won’t go away, State Senator Gil Cedillo is at it again.... From the Sacramento Bee:

Setting up another confrontation with the governor, state Sen. Gilbert Cedillo next week plans to reintroduce the exact same proposal to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants -- word for word -- that was vetoed in September.

"We can be thoughtful and methodical like last year in meeting with the governor -- the Michael Corleone style; or we can do the Sonny Corleone style and go to the mattresses and make it a big public fight for nine months," Cedillo Press Secretary Edward Headington said Monday, referencing the Mafia movie "The Godfather."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, vetoed Cedillo's last bill, saying it did not contain the necessary security precautions. The governor wants such licenses to be obviously marked so that anyone looking at one will know it belongs to an immigrant -- though not necessarily an "illegal" immigrant.

Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, opposes a marked license and has touted support from some quarters of Los Angeles' Jewish community that have called Schwarzenegger's demands akin to the Nazi Germany law requiring Jewish citizens to wear a yellow Star of David on their clothes at all times.

Oh, now we’re Nazis... Swell. Are we living in some strange parallel universe? It is incredible that a State Senator is working overtime to get citizen-like privileges for people who are here illegally... Gee... I’d guess Gil Cedillo must not have done well in his history classes ‘cause he doesn’t seem to understand the fundamentals of citizenship... uh, unless it’s citizenship in Aztlán...


Go to CRO Blog November 2004

Go to CRO Blog archive index




Blue Collar -  120x90
120x90 Jan 06 Brand
Free Trial Static 02
ActionGear 120*60
Free Trial Static 01
Applicable copyrights indicated. All other material copyright 2003-2005