Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ahem! Cultural conservative here (well, as close as this board is getting 'cept for Penske), and I think I've been the most vocal advocate of tort reform.

As the old saw goes, a coincidence is not necessarily a correlation.

In other words, you are also an economic conservative, a trait often not shared by cultural conservatives.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The only region that the GOP controls is Central CA, but that is a very small part of the population.

Orange County? Inland Empire? San Diego?

(I'm not sure about San Diego, but given the enormous military presence...)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Orange County? Inland Empire? San Diego?

(I'm not sure about San Diego, but given the enormous military presence...)

Yup, yup, yup.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I wish I understood what the fuck Gatti's trying to say in these posts. If it doesn't contain the handy signposts of math, or Bush Lied!!, somethimes it's difficult for us neophytes to tell if his masterpiece is again misunderstood, or if he's simply playing with feces again.

Better, Hank.

But I still recommend you use soap.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A couple of points here. First, there really isn't a viable GOP presence in CA. Organizationally, the party has been completely decimated. Arnold is an anomoly, but I don't think he has coatails. Northern CA has always been a DEM stronghold. The GOP relinquished Southern California in the mid-1990s, and given demographics in LA, it is not coming back anytime soon. The only region that the GOP controls is Central CA, but that is a very small part of the population.

Second, while I use to believe that those seeking to overturn Roe just wanted to leave the decision to the states, it's hard to believe that's the case given the current landscape. It appears to me that the right wants to use the courts the same way that the left has used them for years, so framing the issue as you suggest is really disingenuous.

With respect to the first, I submit that you've (not You and Spanky, but the overall group that includes you guys) allowed yourselves to get painted into a corner.

Well, maybe not painted, but the group accepted the characterizations made by the left. As a result, we see leaders disavowing everything they personally don't like about the party, as if the characterizations are correct.

With respect to the second, I'm not really sure what you are talking about, but I assume you aren't suggesting that the Right is trying to get the Courts to ban abortion on a national level! Well, maybe somebody is, but not really the Right.

But you are talking about something else, right? Schiavo perhaps?

On another note regarding California Rs, is LA really gonna get rid of the R mayor rather than hire 2000 more police officers like Bratton requested? I can't believe there is even a serious debate about that out there, particularly with any of the recent former LA police chiefs serving as the mouthpiece of the opposition! Good thing for LA this story isn't getting wider national coverage, because it ain't making the population out there look too good.

[Skeks in the city]

Homeland Insecurity
By STAN D. DONNELLY
Barron's Editorial
March 28, 2005

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU HEARD an economist say that he believes in free trade , because "if you produce what you're good at producing and another country produces what it's good at producing, both countries will be better off?" This distillation of David Ricardo is an economic article of faith, but it's a short-sighted policy for our country.

The free traders would have us believe that China is good at work that requires a content of manual labor. But is that so? The fact is that they aren't good at manual labor, they're just cheap. The economists are misusing Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage. China's cheap labor has nothing to do with China's manufacturing expertise, nor with any innate natural resource blessings. Instead it has everything to do with a bloated population starved for work. At a wage rate of less than 50 cents an hour, with no benefits or social protections of the sort that we have evolved, there is nothing free about this trade on either side of the ocean.

Free traders heartlessly assert that costs are costs, however they are derived. So ask them this: "If free trade means that a society is better off by sourcing its manufactures in low wage areas, regardless of the reasons why the wages are so low, what is wrong with trading with a nation who can offer the cheapest labor of all, slave labor? At those prices, wouldn't we be even more better off?"

The free traders would reply -- with justifiable indignation -- that such a thing would be immoral. Of course, they are right. Except that they now have admitted that costs are not just costs. Morality does have something to do with the equation after all. So let us ask the question again: "Is it moral (or even wise) to eliminate the manual-labor jobs of an evolved nation and disrupt its vital economic balance and social health?"

At its distilled essence, the wealth of a society is created by those people and corporations that make something from nothing. You've got to mine it, make it, or grow it. Manufacturing is directly about 20% of our economy; the other 80% depends on that wealth-generator. Some today scoff that our new "service economy" doesn't need this 20%. A caution: Even though your bones are only 20% of your body mass, without your skeleton, you're a puddle.


We must not fool ourselves that the bargains that we are seeing in China are any bargain at all. Nor should we fool ourselves that we can innovate and educate our way out of it. We already have a generation of millions that have flunked in our government schools. Whatever the reason is, they're here now, and more are on the way. What are we to do with them if their minds cannot be their salvation? What is wrong with letting their hands do the job instead?

Manufacturing today may be in much the same position as agriculture a century ago, when more than half of Americans worked on the land, making food. Today, it's about 3%. Most of that reduction was justifiably due to agricultural and mechanical innovation. But where did all those farmers go? They and their descendents were absorbed by a growing industrial economy that made things. So as farming went out, fortunately, new maker industries were coming in. The farmers and their descendants took up jobs that were in a known but unexpanded sector: Industry and manufacturing.

Interestingly and ominously, in the ensuing century Americans have not discovered any radically new methods to make things. Whether it's metal molecules or plastic polymers or a tree's timber, for all of the improvements and refinements we've made, we're still making things in essentially the same ways as we always have. But today, unlike in the days when the farmers left the fields, there are no new emerging and substantial maker-methods realistically in sight. So when their jobs are transferred to foreigners, where will our current makers go and what will they do?

This is the gamble at the heart of free trade policies: Free traders are betting with a blind faith that because in the past a burgeoning maker industry took up the slack during another maker-segment's contraction, a new one will somehow appear in this time of need and save the day. But 2.1 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in America in about three years.

What is the definition of a successful society? The business of business isn't everything. But it can effect everything. Can we honestly say that a society is successful that has driven its working-class folks' wages down to developing-nation levels? This is where we are heading. And we are all to blame. It is insidious.

Unemployment is not spiking up suddenly: The laid-off makers have generally taken lower wage service jobs. But as we enjoy those low China-made prices, like the slowly boiled frog, we do not feel the gathering danger. And while our leaders should see it, explain it, and lead us from temptation, the workers of America who are snapping up those China-made Wal-Mart prices are just as guilty. It's an awful circle that is slowly tightening into an unseen spiral.

Efficient and cost-effective organizations are forged on the crucible of good, hard competition. Competition is the mother of invention and the sister of efficiency -- but 50 cents an hour above slave wages has nothing to do with either.

Redressing unfair competition is not new, un-American, or anti-capitalistic. Standard Oil and Ma Bell were predatory and Americans used the power of government to restrain them. Is the militaristic dictatorship in China something less?

There are two ways to deal with the problem. First, recognizing the inherently impossible nature of the United Nations, where all sovereign nations -- including brutal dictatorships like China -- are considered legitimate, we must form a free-trade union of only the truly democratic nations.

And for those outside of that union who wish to do business with us, we need to create a simple and transparent tariff system that is adjustable. It would be like a golf handicap system. As you get better, your handicap goes down. What's par for the course? Here in the United States shooting par includes paid holidays and vacations, OSHA and EPA regulations, worker compensation and unemployment state-mandated insurances, hefty business, personal, and property taxes, 14.5% social security tax, time and a half over 40 hours per week, and a $5.15 minimum hourly wage. That's par for the course in America. And on our course, China should have a 36 handicap and accompanying duty. But as China develops, then, like an improving golfer, its handicap will drop. This is a handicap-tariff system that is fair, flexible, and feasible.

We are living in a lull. At present, the former makers are taking lower wage jobs, which is only masking the coming unemployment and disposable earnings problems. In time, people will be unable to afford even those cheap Asian prices Wal-Mart offers, and when that day arrives, so will the whirlwind.

This free trade is not free: Sooner or later, it will cost us dearly.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Homeland Insecurity
By STAN D. DONNELLY
Barron's Editorial
March 28, 2005

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU HEARD an economist say that he believes in free trade, because "if you produce what you're good at producing and another country produces what it's good at producing, both countries will be better off?" This distillation of David Ricardo is an economic article of faith, but it's a shortsighted policy for our country.

The free traders would have us believe that China is good at work that requires a content of manual labor. But is that so? The fact is that they aren't good at manual labor, they're just cheap. The economists are misusing Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage.

This article is so stupid I don't know where to start. The first stupid thing he says is that when it comes to economics, economists don't know what they are talking about. It is kind of like someone saying: “when it comes to architecture, architects don’t know what they are talking about. Let me tell you how to build a building.” If this idiot knew anything, he would know that one of the comparative advantages Ricardo’s cites is access to cheap labor.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city China's cheap labor has nothing to do with China's manufacturing expertise, nor with any innate natural resource blessings.

This is the classic straw man argument. No one economist I know has every made this argument. China’s comparative advantage for now, is that it has cheap labor. However, that will change as the economy grows. Then it will gain other comparative advantages and will develop and then they will have to turn to other countries for cheap labor.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city Instead it has everything to do with a bloated population starved for work. At a wage rate of less than 50 cents an hour, with no benefits or social protections of the sort that we have evolved, there is nothing free about this trade on either side of the ocean.

There is no doubt that the Chinese benefit from this. The worker that has no job, now gets fifty cents an hour. That places him way above the rest of the Chinese. In America consumers get products for cheaper, freeing up more money that can be used in other parts of the economy creating more jobs other places. In our case more service jobs. Both countries experience more economic growth and the standard of living in both countries increases.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city Free traders heartlessly assert that costs are costs, however they are derived. So ask them this: "If free trade means that a society is better off by sourcing its manufactures in low wage areas, regardless of the reasons why the wages are so low, what is wrong with trading with a nation who can offer the cheapest labor of all, slave labor? At those prices, wouldn't we be even more better off?"

WRONG. The point of free trade is that both sides benefit. Slave labor is a market distortion. A slave laborer’s wages don’t increase when we buy products created by them. When we buy products from China, the demand for labor increases, thereby increasing the wages for the laborers, thereby increasing their standard of living.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city the free traders would reply -- with justifiable indignation -- that such a thing would be immoral. Of course, they are right. Except that they now have admitted that costs are not just costs. Morality does have something to do with the equation after all. So let us ask the question again: "Is it moral (or even wise) to eliminate the manual-labor jobs of an evolved nation and disrupt its vital economic balance and social health?"

Yes - if elimination of the manufacturing jobs leads to a higher standard of living for the nation, and makes our economy more efficient. The reduction of manufacturing jobs does not disrupt its economic balance and social health. When the US started like 95% of the jobs were in Agriculture. As our economy evolved, these people switched to manufacturing, but when that happened everyone said “hey the loss of Agricultural jobs is bankrupting the nation”. No it led to a more prosperous nation and a higher standard of living. In addition, there is no such thing as an “economic balance”. Economies are constantly changing and reshaping. There is no balance. You either adapt or die.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city At its distilled essence, the wealth of a society is created by those people and corporations that make something from nothing. You've got to mine it, make it, or grow it.

Most of the new wealth is created by organizations that create nothing tangible. They just create or organize information. That is why our society is called an information society.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city Manufacturing is directly about 20% of our economy; the other 80% depends on that wealth-generator. Some today scoff that our new "service economy" doesn't need this 20%. A caution: Even though your bones are only 20% of your body mass, without your skeleton, you're a puddle.

WRONG – The two sectors of our economy that are growing the fastest are entertainment and software. In reality, these businesses make nothing tangible. All they produce is information that can be reduced to bits and transferred across a wire. Our economy no more depends on the 20% manufacturing jobs, than it depends on the now, 3% of workers who are in Agriculture.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city we must not fool ourselves that the bargains that we are seeing in China are any bargain at all.

Last time I was in Costco I saw a lot of bargains.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city nor should we fool ourselves that we can innovate and educate our way out of it. We already have a generation of millions that have flunked in our government schools. Whatever the reason is, they're here now, and more are on the way. What are we to do with them if their minds cannot be their salvation? What is wrong with letting their hands do the job instead?

Nothing is wrong with letting them use their hands, but if the means of saving manufacturing jobs for these people is depressing the Standard of living for the average American and the average Chinese, the cost just isn’t worth it. We could have kept this country a 95% Agricultural country, saving all those farming jobs, but would the country really have been better off?

Originally posted by Skeks in the city Manufacturing today may be in much the same position as agriculture a century ago, when more than half of Americans worked on the land, making food. Today, it's about 3%. Most of that reduction was justifiably due to agricultural and mechanical innovation. But where did all those farmers go? They and their descendents were absorbed by a growing industrial economy that made things. So as farming went out, fortunately, new maker industries were coming in. The farmers and their descendants took up jobs that were in a known but unexpanded sector: Industry and manufacturing.

Exactly – and now all those jobs are moving into the service economy.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city interestingly and ominously, in the ensuing century Americans have not discovered any radically new methods to make things.

What about software? Biotech? Are you kidding me?

Originally posted by Skeks in the city Whether it's metal molecules or plastic polymers or a tree's timber, for all of the improvements and refinements we've made, we're still making things in essentially the same ways as we always have. But today, unlike in the days when the farmers left the fields, there are no new emerging and substantial maker-methods realistically in sight. So when their jobs are transferred to foreigners, where will our current makers go and what will they do?

We keep losing manufacturing jobs yet we have the lowest unemployment rate in the world and the highest standard of living for a country our size. The current “makers” will go into the growing sectors of our economy.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city This is the gamble at the heart of free trade policies: Free traders are betting with a blind faith that because in the past a burgeoning maker industry took up the slack during another maker-segment's contraction, a new one will somehow appear in this time of need and save the day. But 2.1 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in America in about three years.

We have been losing manufacturing jobs every since the end of WW II. The economy has prospered. What makes this idiot think things won’t continue the way they are. The less we depend on manufacturing jobs, the better off our economy is.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city what is the definition of a successful society? The business of business isn't everything. But it can effect everything. Can we honestly say that a society is successful that has driven its working-class folks' wages down to developing-nation levels? This is where we are heading. And we are all to blame. It is insidious.

Where before we drove everyone away from farming, into higher paying manufacturing jobs, we are pushing everyone into higher paying service jobs.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city Unemployment is not spiking up suddenly: The laid-off makers have generally taken lower wage service jobs.

Low wage service jobs? This is such the old stupid mantra. As if service jobs only came at McDonalds. Most of the service jobs are information service jobs – consulting, advising, etc.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city But as we enjoy those low China-made prices, like the slowly boiled frog, we do not feel the gathering danger. And while our leaders should see it, explain it, and lead us from temptation, the workers of America who are snapping up those China-made Wal-Mart prices are just as guilty. It's an awful circle that is slowly tightening into an unseen spiral.

Luckily many of our leaders, at least in the Republican party, see that free trade always brings short term pains to a few, but brings long term permanent gains to the country as a whole.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city Efficient and cost-effective organizations are forged on the crucible of good, hard competition. Competition is the mother of invention and the sister of efficiency -- but 50 cents an hour above slave wages has nothing to do with either.

Wrong – 50 cents an hour is exactly what the whole system depends on .

Originally posted by Skeks in the city Redressing unfair competition is not new, un-American, or anti-capitalistic. Standard Oil and Ma Bell were predatory and Americans used the power of government to restrain them. Is the militaristic dictatorship in China something less?

Monopolies were distorting markets. The overwhelming majority of Chinese labor is free and paid, and therefore not distorting markets.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city There are two ways to deal with the problem. First, recognizing the inherently impossible nature of the United Nations, where all sovereign nations -- including brutal dictatorships like China -- are considered legitimate, we must form a free-trade union of only the truly democratic nations.

Here the focus should be on free market nations not Democratic nations. There are Democratic nation that do not have free markets. India was that way for over forty years after WWII. We need institutions that insure that economies remain free. Like I don’t know, say the WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city And for those outside of that union who wish to do business with us, we need to create a simple and transparent tariff system that is adjustable.

Those countries outside of the World Trade Organization have to deal with higher tariffs. The TWO multilaterally enforces free trade policies.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city It would be like a golf handicap system. As you get better, your handicap goes down. What's par for the course? Here in the United States shooting par includes paid holidays and vacations, OSHA and EPA regulations, worker compensation and unemployment state-mandated insurances, hefty business, personal, and property taxes, 14.5% social security tax, time and a half over 40 hours per week, and a $5.15 minimum hourly wage. That's par for the course in America. And on our course, China should have a 36 handicap and accompanying duty. But as China develops, then, like an improving golfer, its handicap will drop. This is a handicap-tariff system that is fair, flexible, and feasible.

Yes – a unilateral system is really going to be fair. I really want the US Congress to decide what other countries are doing is fair. Wouldn’t a multilateral institution be better, one like, maybe - THE WTO.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city We are living in a lull. At present, the former makers are taking lower wage jobs, which is only masking the coming unemployment and disposable earnings problems. In time, people will be unable to afford even those cheap Asian prices Wal-Mart offers, and when that day arrives, so will the whirlwind.

This free trade is not free: Sooner or later, it will cost us dearly.

Yes – Free trade will lead to a higher standard of living for China and us. Thirty years from now some idiot in China will be talking about not sending their manufacturing jobs to Myanmar and Vietnam.

It is articles like these that remind me why I am such a staunch Republican. I would much rather be in a Party with all the arch Social Conservatives than with the moron that wrote this piece.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
With respect to the first, I submit that you've (not You and Spanky, but the overall group that includes you guys) allowed yourselves to get painted into a corner.

Well, maybe not painted, but the group accepted the characterizations made by the left. As a result, we see leaders disavowing everything they personally don't like about the party, as if the characterizations are correct.

With respect to the second, I'm not really sure what you are talking about, but I assume you aren't suggesting that the Right is trying to get the Courts to ban abortion on a national level! Well, maybe somebody is, but not really the Right.

But you are talking about something else, right? Schiavo perhaps?

On another note regarding California Rs, is LA really gonna get rid of the R mayor rather than hire 2000 more police officers like Bratton requested? I can't believe there is even a serious debate about that out there, particularly with any of the recent former LA police chiefs serving as the mouthpiece of the opposition! Good thing for LA this story isn't getting wider national coverage, because it ain't making the population out there look too good.

The problem with the Republican party in California is product branding. The proportion of Democrats to Republican in this state hasn't really changed in forty years. The only thing that has changed is the amount of independant. That has gone up. With more independant you would think the Republicans could win more. However, in Governor Wilson's time if you asked someone what they though a repulican was they would say: small government, lower taxes, tough on crime, responsbile government. Now when you ask someone, they say: Pro-Gun, Pro-life. Two highly unpopular positions, especially with woman. Women in California have just stopped voting for Republicans. The reason why this has happened is because the Social Conservatives have controlled the party and keep running social conservatives for office. We had a Governor with the lowest approval rating in its history win relection because the Republican ran a pro-life, pro-gun candidate against him. Republicans can win statewide in California and in swing districts - it happens all the time - but the only ones that do are pro-choice Republicans. But the social conservatives are in denial and keep making up excuses why their candidates lose - bad organization, bad communication etc.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky
The problem with the Republican party in California is product branding. The proportion of Democrats to Republican in this state hasn't really changed in forty years. The only thing that has changed is the amount of independant. That has gone up. With more independant you would think the Republicans could win more. However, in Governor Wilson's time if you asked someone what they though a repulican was they would say: small government, lower taxes, tough on crime, responsbile government. Now when you ask someone, they say: Pro-Gun, Pro-life. Two highly unpopular positions, especially with woman. Women in California have just stopped voting for Republicans. The reason why this has happened is because the Social Conservatives have controlled the party and keep running social conservatives for office. We had a Governor with the lowest approval rating in its history win relection because the Republican ran a pro-life, pro-gun candidate against him. Republicans can win statewide in California and in swing districts - it happens all the time - but the only ones that do are pro-choice Republicans. But the social conservatives are in denial and keep making up excuses why their candidates lose - bad organization, bad communication etc.

If you are talking about California social conservatives who say they are in favor of legislative restrictions on abortion at a state level, than yeah, I can see how that hurts the party in California. Of all places, I'd think that California is the perfect place to just say "whatever we want to do in this highly contentious area, will only be done by popular vote in a referendum" or something like that. But the answer to Roe for you and other non-social-conservatives should just be "it will revert to the states, and California is a pro-choice state now just as it was before Roe, and we won't hijack the process to subvert the will of the people of California".

The gun thing is nuts though. It all ties to crime, and the LA mayor's race (from what I've been reading) is basically a race between "I can fix our outrageous homicide rate using America's foremost expert, who recommends hiring 2000 more police officers... in line with other major cities", and "hey, some minority kid got beat last year and he only had the chance to throw one punch before it happened!". That shows me how susceptible the politics of California is to sound bites.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
On another note regarding California Rs, is LA really gonna get rid of the R mayor rather than hire 2000 more police officers like Bratton requested? I can't believe there is even a serious debate about that out there, particularly with any of the recent former LA police chiefs serving as the mouthpiece of the opposition! Good thing for LA this story isn't getting wider national coverage, because it ain't making the population out there look too good.

Um. Jim Hahn, the current mayor, is not a Republican.

Thank God our coverage has kept the real facts of our mayoral race secret. Clearly, once the details are out, Los Angeles is dead meat, and all that'll be left is to turn out the lights.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Um. Jim Hahn, the current mayor, is not a Republican.

Thank God our coverage has kept the real facts of our mayoral race secret. Clearly, once the details are out, Los Angeles is dead meat, and all that'll be left is to turn out the lights.

Dammit! I read or skim the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Suntimes, the NYT, the Washington Post and the LA Times every day.

Plus numerous searches of Yahoo and CNN news during the course of the day.

This is the proof I've always needed that the media is biased!

Seriously, who was the R? Was it Riordan or something like that? Bloomberg?

In any case, the fundamental point is the same. The race is making LA look as stoopid as Chicago typically does during a race. The crime issue is a no-brainer.


Hello

Just kidding about that last one.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Orange County? Inland Empire? San Diego?

(I'm not sure about San Diego, but given the enormous military presence...)

Orange County is basically even at this point, unless you consider Loretta Sanchez a republican. Not sure on the Inland Empire, and San Diego is definitely GOP land, but the numbers are so scewed now in the LA area that it doesn't matter.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
With respect to the first, I submit that you've (not You and Spanky, but the overall group that includes you guys) allowed yourselves to get painted into a corner.

Well, maybe not painted, but the group accepted the characterizations made by the left. As a result, we see leaders disavowing everything they personally don't like about the party, as if the characterizations are correct.

You really don't know what you are talking about. The shift in CA is primarily based on demographics. Hispanics make up a huge plurality of CA and will be a majority by the end of the decade. The GOP historically has done a very poor job appealing to minorities, especially blacks and hispanics. Coupled that with Wilson's stance on Prop 189 (which I agreed with) and you have a recipe for perpetual minority party status, until the GOP makes a real effort to court the hispanic vote.

With respect to the second, I'm not really sure what you are talking about, but I assume you aren't suggesting that the Right is trying to get the Courts to ban abortion on a national level! Well, maybe somebody is, but not really the Right.

But you are talking about something else, right? Schiavo perhaps?

What is the Right you keep talking about? The anti-abortion crowd is taking the fight in stages. Why do you think the pro-choice crowd puts up such a fight to parental notification? The first step is to overturn Roe. After that is accomplished I am confident that there will be a movement to federalize the issue in the other direction. The GOP no longer stands for localization of social issues. Oh, and by the way, the fucking hypocritical non-cultural conservatives will remain silent on the issue.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Seriously, who was the R? Was it Riordan or something like that? Bloomberg?

Richard Riordan was the last Republican mayor. Hahn succeeded him in 2001.

In any case, the fundamental point is the same. The race is making LA look as stoopid as Chicago typically does during a race. The crime issue is a no-brainer.

LA's problems are myriad and deep, but when I read the LA Times and listed to the radio reports on the mayoral race, I don't read much at all about this "crime issue" you find to be such a prism into the intelligence of the populace.

I've neither seen nor heard anyone discussing "get[ting] rid of the [s]R[/s] mayor rather than hire 2000 more police officers like Bratton requested."

Hahn's troubles for re-election revolve largely around the fact that he hired (and more importantly later fired) an African American police chief who had risen through the ranks. From what I've read, people seem to think that his firing was a good idea substantively, but it deeply alienated the black community, which is a big chunk of the electorate for mayor.

Hahn is currently polling about 50-50 with his challenger Villaragosa, and that's substantially down from last time, when he won about 80% of the black vote. Right now the two are flinging insults at each other as being untrustworthy, and very little of the heat generated by the debates seem to revolve around the hiring or nonhiring of police officers.

Notably, the biggest problem in the LA mayoral race is that the citizenry is almost uniformly ignoring it. This self-absorption of the populace is, I understand, a hallmark of Los Angeles politics in between riots, plagues, or other events of crisis.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You really don't know what you are talking about. The shift in CA is primarily based on demographics. Hispanics make up a huge plurality of CA and will be a majority by the end of the decade. The GOP historically has done a very poor job appealing to minorities, especially blacks and hispanics. Coupled that with Wilson's stance on Prop 189 (which I agreed with) and you have a recipe for perpetual minority party status, until the GOP makes a real effort to court the hispanic vote.

I say that you've allowed yourself to be painted into a corner by accepting characterizations from the left, and this is your answer?

Seriously, I'm reading this essentially as:
we didn't get painted into a corner by accepting characterizations from the left (i.e., not clearly establishing our non-cultural-conservative position) on abortion, that's what happened on hispanics.

So which is it, not communicating well on abortion and guns, or not communicating well to hispanics?
When you and Spanky determine which corner you've (i.e., the Californian non-cultural-conservatives) been painted into, let me know and I'll try to send help to get you out. I mean, you guys should know better than anyone how you got where you are today.

FWIW, I agree with you as a general matter about the need to make "a real effort to court the hispanic vote" (and the votes of all other ethnicities while we are at it), and I've been vocal about this here before.

Anyhoo, none of your brilliant response addresses my point about how you've let the left paint your collective position on abortion. I accepted the abortion and gun thing as Spanky's premise. If you disagree with the premise, take it up with him please.