She’s just a raving idiot with a subzero IQ. She doesn’t really do any real damage. McCain consistently damages both the Party and the Country.

That you consider Whitman and Schwarzenegger to be on the same team, and on your team, says it all, really.

Because Arnie has disavowed the Republican party, calling himself post-partisan.

I’m just asking, ’cause you’ve always seemed to know a whole lot about all the key players in every governor’s, Senate, and House race in America, to the point that you push folks like Tom Ridge, Jane Norton, and now Meg Whitman because “they can win”, for some reason or another; yet I’ve never gotten any clear sense of where you yourself live, beyond having grown up in Rhode Island (oh wait, I’m sorry; that was somebody else).

I’m also asking because I, personally, have always considered it bad form to get directly involved in the statewide elections of states I don’t reside in. I can understand working for and donating to out-of-state congressional and Senate races, because their outcomes truly do affect everybody in America, but gubernatorial elections are a no-no to me, a feeling born of my ingrained Southern contempt of carpetbaggers. I still remember how ticked off I got in 2003 when I heard about people from states like New York actively working to get Kathleen Blanco elected Governor of my native Louisiana, a race that ultimately had no effect on them whatsoever, beyond their desire to see a “red” governorship turned “blue” in an off-year election. They got their wish, and I and the rest of the citizens of LA had to live with the results of their activism, and I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how that worked out when Katrina hit.

Until very recently, I was a transplanted Californian. It took a little while to sink in, and it broke my heart because there is so much to love about CA, but I finally came to the conclusion that the only place that state was ultimately going — politically, economically, and socially — was straight down, and that it didn’t really make sense for me to invest any further in trying to build a life there. I was leaning towards supporting Poizner before making the decision to get out altogether; now, I’m back in LA, and have a governor named Bobby who is infinitely preferable to any of the possibilities California is going to wind up with next year. That being the case, I won’t be taking sides in the Golden State’s next gubernatorial election, ’cause it really just isn’t my business anymore.

If you are in fact a Californian then carry on, and I apologize for my tone.

My former Lieutenant called me the other day just to BS. He’s still working. I’m now retired. He told me the DA had told the Department to not make ANY drug arrests where the sole charge being sought is the possession or sale or use of drugs (unless they are driving). Normally, DUI is a misdemeanor (felony with sufficient priors or death or severe injury involvement), and the suspect is cited out as soon as he is sober/straight. Normally drug possession (other than marijuana) is a felony. They can still arrest for the misdemeanor, but not the felony.

Also, if there is some other crime involved, they can arrest for the other crime, and the seized drugs are in evidence. But the other crime will be charged…. not the drugs. If the only crime is the drugs, the officers are merely to seize the drugs for destruction and let the suspect walk.

The D.A. apparently has also ordered the Sheriff to not book drug-only arrests, because the D.A. is not going to charge them. If the guy comes in on multiple charges that include drugs, the Sheriff is to 849(b) (essentially to un-arrest) them on the drug charges.

The city police department is small enough that it does not have its own jail, so if the Sheriff won’t take them, there’s absolutely no point in arresting if you can’t immediately cite them out of custody (and normally you don’t cite out felonies).

In fact, given the DA’s position, you are potentially opening yourself up for adverse civil action if the officers arrest under that circumstance. So in a strange twist of fate, making the drug arrest (when told not to do so by the D.A.) potentially becomes shooting yourself in the foot.

I’m not going to mention the county, or the city in question because there’s no point in advertising that sort of thing, but there it is.

Wasn’t she entertaining a run for Governor?

I’m concerned about, it is the fact that they’re the real Conservatives in this race that counts. No, they’ve never been elected before, but neither had Joseph Cao, Tom Rooney, Cynthia Lummis, Don Carcieri, or Arnold Schwarzenegger when they ran, and they won.

What’s the title?

I was being serious, I’ll look into his writing on this issue (not abortion as I understand the moral issue there, but how it affects statewide elections considering Roe).

I was asking why it matter on the State level considering that the Roe decision has obliterated anything affirmative action that States can take on this issue. Any bill that diminishes abortion at the state level will likely be ruled unconstitutional which makes the whole issue a non-starter at the State level.

Also, saying that abortion and fiscal issues are one in the same is ridiculous at best. You don’t need to outlaw abortion in order to cut pork-barrel spending. You can make some morally equivalent issue about corruption or government control but at the end of the day the two issues are not intertwined. You can cut Murtha’s airport on the federal level or the hundred plus pointless commissions on the state level and never come near the abortion issue.

Neil

Well the base can’t elect anyone to state wide office alone, and the general population disagrees with the base on abortion, at least in CA. So is the answer to bow to the base by nominating someone that appeals to the base but can’t get elected? Maybe you call that spitting on, but it ignores the practical realities of winning state wide elections. If your argument is about making a statement, but not state wide winning elections then you have a point.

Maybe the argument ought to be about maybe not perfect on social issues like abortion, but at least a candidate who if elected who is willing to work towards reducing abortion or any other willing to work in a positive direction on any social issue. I don’t see Moonbeam willing to work in a direction on any issue I care about, ever.

We do have a primary in CA, so I suppose the best candidate will win, that too can hardly be called “spitting on”. I’ll be voting for whoever wins the R primary come the general election.

Neil,

Here’s you a hint, like you really need it.

The swim suit part of the completion for Governor will be rather shall we say interesting.

“See how many gay judges you can P.O.” at the Miss USA contest.

… it doesn’t get to the point of destroying all the candidates to the point NONE of them can win a General – which I’m still not sure whether FL Senate will land up that way — hope not. We cannot afford to have any folks sitting things out over their tender (we otherwise didn’t know they had any) feelings being bruised. We’ve gotta get people better helping their first choice and still willing to want to help whomever is the General candidate. But I really don’t want to get all that (below) started again.
+overcoming ObamaZombies/(h/t scarlos: Barracklash) – awaking ObamaZombies and scarlos: Barracklash
+Conservatives – Are we preparing Conservatives via 2010 Campaigns for ’12,’14,’16 Races? – shouldn’t we be?!?!
+ConservCand’s – Conservative Candidates (the Diary)
+MSM challenge – The “Pretend you’re a Liberal MSM reporter (and Spin the story)” Challenge [now with Aug.2009 Tom Ridge book Distortion update]
+Daniel Hannan (British MEP) – mbecker’s: What the Leader of the Republican Party should sound like! Productive vs non-Productive sectors of the Economy same here as in UK.
+Daily Dimes Dichotomy – creating an NRSC: Daily Dimes Dichotomy
+RNC called – RNC called, I hung up!
+Party of NO – Republicans must be the Party of NO [to Bigger Govt.] not the Party of SLOW[er Liberal Incremental-ism]
+sitting out elections banter – in depth Sit-It-Out discussion and the out-right vote for the other side (only one example of those comments)
+how AltParty is RINOism – can one catch RINOvirus? or in Moe’s can one catch RINOvirus
+working together – standing up about working together
+Media feeding R infighting – MSM uses snippets out of context to feed Republican in-fighting narrative additional commentary on that here (speaking out against SoSo discussion) and here
+Parading in Ill-Fitting shoes – knee-jerk reactions to “generic/general” statements – doth protest too much?
+MSM challenge – The “Pretend you’re a Liberal MSM reporter (and Spin the story)” Challenge [now with Aug.2009 Tom Ridge book Distortion Update]
+Deli-story – Deli-story
+ZERO-strategy – ZERO-strategy
+Campaign handicapping factors – Analyzing Campaign chances by more than “gut feel”
+Red-Dogs – Red-Dogs, RINOs, CINOs, DINOs, PLINOs, and Blue-Dogs, oh my… The Political Zoo – what/who are they?
+Any “D” (CINO/PLINO) – How electing ANY Democrat empowers the antithesis of Conservativism, the Ultra-Far-Left Progressive/Socialist/Democrats
+Partial-Choicers work with us, a long discussion – How, when, where, PRO-LIFErs can/should work with PARTIAL-CHOICERS

1. Control of the party central committee
2. Attempting to persuade voters
3. Character
4. Historic relationship between values votes and fiscal votes. Squishes on one are more likely to squish out on the other; look at any broad based record of Congressional votes.

Or it’s just like high school. I think for the most part it’s just like high school, except with the power to tax, the power to spend, the power to launch nuclear weapons, and the power to arrest, detain, and control.

But mostly it’s high school. Someone is popular, you need to be popular with them. That’s Meg Whitman.

She’s an ugly cuss, too. First one to walk the plank.