It’s time for Dianne Feinstein to go. Please vote for Elizabeth Emken:
As usual, Dianne Feinstein is nowhere to be seen when there is hard work to be done, so Elizabeth Emken went ahead and had the debate without her:
The fact that DiFi is a no-show has nothing to do with age. My sister went to pre-school with one of DiFi’s daughters. At Christmas, DiFi and my mom got assigned to work on a big project. Fifty or so years later, my Mom still hasn’t forgiven DiFi for being a no-show, sticking my Mom with the work, and then attempting to take a “fair” share of the credit when my Mom’s efforts came to fruition.
Character is destiny: DiFi is lazy. She was then, she is now, and it’s time to get her out of the United States Senate.
If you have friends or family who vote in California, please share this video with them. Voters don’t like DiFi and DiFi’s absentee campaign shows that she doesn’t like voters very much. Don’t let Feinstein end up in Washington again simply by default.
A few months ago, I though Elizabeth Emken’s chance of unseating Dianne Feinstein in the Senate was about equal to the Giant’s chance of winning the World Series. I was not optimistic. Today, I believe that both are possible and, indeed, probable. I’ll leave the baseball talk to others, and I’ll focus on Elizabeth Emken. It’s not just that Elizabeth Emken is such a good candidate (which she is); it’s that Dianne Feinstein has refused to be any type of candidate at all (which is unsurprising given her embarrassing record).
Elizabeth Emken is impressive. She graduated from UCLA with dual degrees in Economics and Political Science, and spent time at Cambridge studying China and the Middle East. She worked for years at IBM running numbers and analyzing management in order to increase performance and decrease costs. Elizabeth understands how complex financial systems operate and she understands effective management technique.
Sixteen years ago, when her son was diagnosed with profound autism, Elizabeth left the private sector to work in Washington to help fund cost-effective, productive programs for those who are unable to care for themselves. I’m going to quote directly from Elizabeth’s website regarding her autism work, because it is a snapshot of her intelligence, her familiarity with Washington politics and procedures, and her no-nonsense approach to budget issues, even when federal funds have a direct impact on her own life:
Elizabeth is a fighter and a problem solver. She was “drafted” into a second career as an advocate for developmentally disabled children after her son, Alex, was diagnosed with autism. She served as Vice President for Government Relations at Autism Speaks, the Nation`s largest science and advocacy organization devoted to the public health emergency of autism.
Elizabeth coordinated advocacy for multiple pieces of federal legislation addressing autism, the Advancement in Pediatric Autism Research Act, the lead title of the Children`s Health Act of 2000, and the Combating Autism Act of 2006 which authorized nearly $1 billion over 5 years to combat autism through research, screening, early detection and early intervention.
A vital element of this accomplishment, Elizabeth led the charge to ensure transparency and accountability on how the NIH would spend autism research dollars. For the first time at the NIH, her efforts produced a portfolio analysis of autism spending that would have to withstand public scrutiny – a policy Elizabeth believes should apply throughout the entire government.
At Autism Speaks, Elizabeth launched a multi-state campaign to secure insurance coverage for autism-related services. 30 states have enacted autism insurance reform laws, saving participating states millions in taxpayer funds that would otherwise have been directed to state health care and special education services. This groundbreaking legislation, aimed at ending marketplace discrimination against individuals with autism, passed into law in California on October 9, 2011.
Elizabeth doesn’t just have intelligence, skills, and a strong record, she also has charisma. I was fortunate enough to hear her speak today at the Marin Republican Women Federated and I was blown away. She is a smooth, but not glib speaker, who engages almost fiercely with her audience. She is not a dilettante. She is a woman who believes passionately in a government that maximizes individual freedom, while efficiently providing necessary services in the most cost-effective way.
I’ve been fortunate enough over the years to see many good conservative candidates come and go in California. Why then do I think Elizabeth has a chance? Because this is a year like no other year. As in 2008, Republicans are fired up and want to vote. As in 2008, even if they cannot affect California’s electoral college votes, California Republicans want to make a difference in local elections. What makes 2012 different from — and better than — 2008 is the fact that Elizabeth is running against Dianne Feinstein, not Barbara Boxer.
I hold no brief for Boxer, but she is an energetic politician. She campaigned hard in 2008, in part because her opponent, Carly Fiorina, was a very visible candidate, with a large pocketbook. Boxer went up and down California, rallying her troops, and it’s the boots on the ground that will ultimately matter at the ballot box.
Dianne Feinstein, doesn’t have boots on the ground . . . or slippers . . . or delicate, expensive sandals. She is the invisible candidate. She has repeatedly refused to debate Emken. Feinstein takes her “no debate” stance so seriously, she won’t even talk to the press about debating Elizabeth.
Feinstein’s sudden shyness isn’t really surprising. Whatever energy Feinstein originally brought to Washington has long since dissipated. Having put in her 20 years, she seems to view serving as a Senator a giant boondoggle. She ignores her constituents, she ignores voters, she even ignores California itself, as she demonstrated when she failed to get any significant part of the $850,000,000 Jobs Bill earmarked for California. (By this, I’m not endorsing the stimulus. I’m only pointing out that, when there was money to be had, and when our state was — and is — hurting badly, Feinstein was supine.) Further, given that Feinstein is already 80, there’s reason to believe that she has no intention of serving out yet another six-year term. Instead, there’s a strong possibility she’ll retire early, letting Jerry Brown have his pick of California Progressives to fill her Senate seat.
In other words, Feinstein is running as the ultimate incumbent: she’s just assuming that her name on the ballot is enough to get her elected, and she’s probably hoping that an unelectable Progressive can hang onto her coattails to hold the same seat.
But this is 2012, and everything is different. Before this election, Feinstein’s name might have been enough to win. But there’s a dirty little secret in 2012, one that the media has kept under wraps: Californians don’t like Feinstein. The rolling California Business Roundtable/Pepperdine School of Public Policy polls have some interesting numbers. First, for months more than 65%, and often more than 70%, of Californians have thought that California is heading in the wrong direction. That attitude is bad for incumbents. Second, specifically with regard to Dianne Feinstein, voters don’t like her: she’s occasionally cracked the 50% mark, but she’s also spent a long time in the mid- to high-40% likability area. As with Obama, it’s bad news for an incumbent who cannot stay above 50%. An even more interesting number is the high percentage of undecideds polled: 20% of California voters are up for grabs.
Emken ended her speech by saying, “I’m a different kind of candidate. I’m a Mom; I work for a living. I understand what families are going through…. If you are mentally or physically unable to care for yourself, you have nothing to fear from me.” Emken, like Romney, is not a monster. Instead, she is an ordinary (albeit very talented) person who recognizes that California and the United States can be saved, and can still provide necessary support for the most helpless. She also understands, though, that this can only be done through greater efficiency, not greater profligacy. The current governmental approach, one the Feinstein embodies, works hard to kill the taxpayer geese who for so long have laid the golden government eggs. Those days are over. We need sound fiscal management, and Emken gets it.
If you’re a California voter, don’t let the fact that your Presidential vote is probably symbolic stop you from going to the polls. There are important issues (“Yes on Prop. 32!”) and candidates out there that need your support. Sending Elizabeth Emken, rather than Dianne Feinstein, to the United States Senate could be the most important thing you do on November 6.
(Cross-posted at Brutally Honest.)
Laer, author of the fabulous Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State – How California is Destroying Itself and Why it Matters to America, has posted a California voter’s guide at the website’s a companion to his book. Unlike all other voter guides, it’s not only informative (and, indeed, it’s more detailed than most voter’s guides), it’s vastly entertaining.
California propositions are enough to drive even the best informed voter absolutely nuts. If you’re struggling with the California slate, make life a little easier on yourself and check out what Laer has to say.
My computer is in its death throes, so I have a new one on order. I just get the confirmation from Dell, and it contained this interesting little notice:
For shipments to California, a state environmental fee up to $10 per item will be added to invoices for all orders containing displays greater than 4 inches. Dell Marketing LP collects applicable tax in all states. Buyer is responsible for remitting additional tax to tax authorities.
Since I’m buying only the tower and not the monitor, this $10 green gouge doesn’t apply to me, but it’s still a telling sign of the way California nickels and dimes its consumers into bankruptcy or flight.
I thought I’d share with you some of the things my friends have posted on Facebook. First, a cartoon that’s obviously meant to support the Progressive open border policy, but that just as obviously proves the opposite:
I understand that you’re supposed to read the cartoon to mean that, without the Native American’s open border policies, we white people would still be floating around the Atlantic. Therefore, open borders are good. I have this strong urge to explain to the Progressives reading the cartoon that, if one looks at what happened to the Native Americans, they would have been wiser to adopt the policies that Republicans now advocate.
The next thing I found on Facebook was this anti-Romney poster:
I get it. Romney is an incredible hypocrite because his ancestors weren’t monogamous. He therefore has no basis for asserting that marriage is between one man and one woman. My response?
Dear Progressive, yes, some cultures are polygamous, but they’ve still involved a man on one side of the bed and a woman on the other. You see, historically, marriage has always been about two things: procreation and a wealth transfer system that allowed the man (who historically created wealth) to be assured that his own progeny, whether from one woman or from several, received his wealth. It’s kind of atavistic.
I’m not saying that atavistic human behavior is a good reason to keep the marriage status quo. As you know, I think the state should get out of the marriage business and get into the civil unions business, with an eye to promoting whatever conjoinings of people are best for the state. However, it’s foolish to pretend that relationships that never have natural procreative abilities are the same as the heterosexual marriages that have been normative throughout history. And no, please don’t hurl the words “adoption” or “artificial insemination” at me, and don’t mention that the English aristocracy so embraced cuckolding that the wife’s marital duty was limited to an heir and a spare. The fact remains that our lizard brains have always focused on getting a man to impregnate a woman, safe in the knowledge that she wasn’t cheating and that it would be his genetic offspring that got the benefit of his labor.
And lastly, a video that several of my friends posted. I don’t know about Prop. 37 and I may discover after researching it that I support it. Nevertheless, watching these vapid, alcoholic, misogynistic Hollywood types promote Prop. 37 (in insulting and condescending tones) inspires in me a visceral dislike for the proposition, and a strong desire to vote against it:
Real Clear Politics, Sunday, September 30, 2012:
I’m excited not only for myself, but for Laer Pearce, whose book, Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State – How California is Destroying Itself and Why it Matters to America, is the subject of the post that RCP picked up. It’s a great book, and as many Americans as possible should read it, so that they can fully understand what Progressive politics will do to the American landscape.
Yesterday, I posted about the result of California’s open primary in Marin: two Democrats running against each other for the California Assembly. My post was about the problem that this creates for those people whose party has been shut out of the election. The net effect of open primaries is that, rather than allowing parties to choose their own candidates, the primary just becomes a “pre-election election,” with the November election serving as a run-off.
It turns out that the open primaries are also a problem for the candidates facing off against each other in November, because it’s hard for voters to distinguish between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. In the article I quoted yesterday,the Marin IJ tried to help, by painting Marc Levine as more “pro-business,” which can be translated as “Mitt Romney surrogate.”
The IJ needn’t have made the effort, though. I didn’t realize it when I wrote yesterday’s post, but I had waiting in my mail box a flyer from the California Democratic Party making the difference between the two candidates as clear as a bright summer day (click on thumbnails to enlarge):
Marc Levine Doesn’t Want You to Know About the Elephant in the Room . . .
Because the elephant in the room is MARC LEVINE
Turn the flyer over and the message gets more specific:
The MITT ROMNEY CAMPAIGN KICKOFF in San Rafael was described as “LIKE MINDS COMING TOGETHER…”
[Quoting a female attendee] “We’re a bunch of red folks . . . and we find comfort with our own.”
Marin County Republican Chair Kevin Krick dismissed Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments as “a speed bump on the way to the White House.”
And the applauding Elephant in the Room was Marc Levine! [With a big red finger arrow pointing to a picture of Levine attending the kick-off, with the Levine picture cropped in the shape of an elephant.]
What’s next — campaign contributions from Republican Special Interests? Is this the kind of “Democrat” we want representing us in the State Assembly?
One can guess what happened. Marc Levine, in an effort to distinguish himself from a Democrat opponent who is pure Progressive, sought to make himself known to a broader coalition of Marin County voters. Since Marin has no subway or train stations outside of which the candidate can stand to introduce himself to voters, he goes from one political event to another. This one was a Republican event. He probably thought it was a smart move, because Republicans, having been denied a candidate by the open primary system are, theoretically, an up-for-grabs constituency. They’ve got to vote for someone, so why not Levine?
Poor Levine. His tactical outreach effort backfired, but it had the salutary effect of exposing the anti-democratic effect of open primaries: Because of the open primary, which denied Marin County Republicans the right to choose their own candidate, the Democrat Party in California filled the vacuum by anointing a “Republican” candidate.
This whole thing has become a travesty. What we’re seeing isn’t democracy in action. Instead, it’s one-party rule, complete with infighting, without even the pretense of open elections.
The theory behind Open Primaries is that it will encourage moderation in districts that are extremely Democrat or extremely Republican. Without Open Primaries, minority opposition votes are symbolic throwaway votes. Whoever is the majority candidate wins, regardless of the details of that candidate’s platform. With Open Primaries, which inevitably result in two majority candidates going head to head, the minority opposition must either refrain from voting entirely or vote for the least bad of the other party’s candidates. The hope is that, if minority party voters do the latter, they’ll vote for the opposition candidate who is least extreme. I suspect that’s what’s going to happen in the upcoming Marin County election for 10th District in the California Assembly:
Due to California’s new open primary law, two Democrats will compete for the 10th District Assembly seat in the Nov. 6 general election.
Because the 10th District is overwhelmingly Democratic, in past years the general election has been little more than a formality; for all practical purposes, the eventual winner had already been decided in the Democratic primary election.
The incumbent in this race is Michael Allen, who was elected to the Assembly in 2010 to represent the 7th District. Allen, 65, moved from Sonoma County to an apartment in downtown San Rafael after the 7th District was splintered by redistricting in 2011. Currently the assistant majority leader in the Assembly, Allen is a labor lawyer who has served as executive director of the Service Employees International Union Local 707 as well as president of the North Bay Labor Council and district director for state Sen. Patricia Wiggins. [Bookworm: In other words, way Left.]
His challenger is Marc Levine, 38, who has served on the San Rafael City Council since 2009. McCuan said Levine is known as a more business-friendly Democrat, and Levine’s endorsements and campaign donors indicate that. Levine angered some more liberal Marin Democrats in 2011 when he supported the opening of a Target store in San Rafael.
“Levine’s supporters are Joe Nation Democrats,” McCuan said, referring to the former assemblyman from Marin who once tried and failed to upend U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey in a Democratic primary election. [Bookworm: In other words, slightly less Left, thereby marginally avoiding fiscal insanity.]
I’m going to vote for Levine, because he’s better than Allen. Anything is better than Allen. But I truly resent having my voice muffled in this way. My candidate has been thrown out of the election entirely. Republicans are denied a voice and that is, I think, a complete failure of representation. It’s one thing always to lose; it’s another thing to be unable even to cry out as you do.
I galloped through Laer Pearce’s Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State – How California is Destroying Itself and Why it Matters to America, which is a great book. My review is at PJ Lifestyle:
Reading my friend Laer Pearce’s book Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State – How California is Destroying Itself and Why it Matters to America made me crazy. Laer is a wonderful writer with straightforward, prose, a witty sense of humor that doesn’t overwhelm the narrative, and a commanding mastery of facts about California’s politics, business, education, and public policy. In theory, I should have galloped through Craziforniain three hours. In fact, it took me three days to read.
Why did I have a problem with this fascinating book? Because, when I started I did not know how deep the Crazifornia rot ran in the state, nor was I aware quite how infectious the insanity is when it comes to the rest of America. To keep up with the deluge of evidence proving that California is indeed crazy, I repeatedly stopped reading so that I could scratch out little notes to myself: “California’s all-powerful bureaucrats are an army of Leftist Rube Goldberg’s with guns.” “This is a perfect example of voter credulity and bureaucratic overreach.” “California takes a legislatively created energy crisis and makes it worse with more legislation.” The scariest note I wrote was also the shortest: “As California goes, so goes the nation.”
That last note is why you should read the book — and give it to friends and family — in the days remaining before the election. California isn’t just a basket case, it’s a proselytizing basket case, with its environmental zealots, community organizers, and wishful economic thinkers aggressively selling their ideas to other states and to the federal government. As Laer demonstrates, while the recession is slowing the other forty-nine states from buying into California’s governing philosophy, the Obama government is an enthusiastic supporter. Another four years of Obama, and California won’t be the only bankrupt crazy place in America.
Read the whole thing here.
The movie said “if you build it, they will come it.” More and more California businesses say, “if you tax it, we will go“:
Comcast announced Tuesday that it would shutter three Northern California call centers and consolidate them into other western U.S. centers in a few months, a move that will affect as many as 1,000 jobs.
Operations at the cable company’s call centers in Livermore, Morgan Hill and Sacramento will be shifted to centers in Oregon, Washington and Colorado at the end of November, Comcast said.
The company’s announcement of the consolidation cited the “the high cost of doing business in California” as the impetus for the decision.
If you haven’t already, please buy yourself a copy of my friend Laer’s book, Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State – How California is Destroying Itself and Why it Matters to America. It will explain everything you need to know about Comcast’s decision.
Those of you who were lucky enough to have started using the internet a few years ago probably remember Laer Pearce, who blogged at Cheat-Seeking Missiles. Laer was one of my first blog friends, meaning that we corresponded by email and, eventually, we met. He is precisely what you’d imagine him to be from his blog: informed, analytical, brilliant, witty, and just an all-around great guy.
He stopped blogging a few years ago to devote his free time to writing a book about the insanity that is California. Well, the book came out today! It’s called Crazifornia. Here’s the Amazon book description:
When the agency responsible for state roads spends $4 million on new cars and trucks, then parks them unused for two years, that’s Crazifornia. When cancer warnings are required on buildings because they may contain estrogen or testosterone, that’s Crazifornia. And when a full-frontal governmental assault on business drives enough people out of a state in ten years to double the population of Oregon, that’s Crazifornia, too. Through tale after outrageous, funny, tragic tale, “Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State” explains why California is crashing, making it a must-read for all Californians and for anyone who fears California may be coming their way soon. That’s why nationally syndicated radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt called Crazifornia “The most insightful book on California’s perilous condition – ever.” Part One provides history and perspective, explaining how the PEER Axis – Progressives, Environmentalists, Educators and Reporters – took over the Golden State and work to keep it a leader in Progressivism, generation after generation. Part Two looks at the current state of affairs in the Tarnished State – bureaucratic ineptitude, anti-business policies, a failed education system, entrenched environmentalism, unsustainable pensions and a perpetually unbalanced budget, and considers California’s options for the future. “One rarely reads such a funny account of such a sad subject,” said California columnist and author Steven Greenhut. “This is a great book to read, tearfully, as you pack the house in Orange County and wait for the moving van to take you to Nevada.”
I haven’t read the book yet (I’m buying it as soon as I finish this post), but I can tell you in advance what you’ll find: it will be extremely well-informed; easy to read despite it’s serious subject matter; as Steven Greenhut said in the review above, it will be funny despite the depressing subject matter; and you will get a glimpse into America’s future if Obama is elected and he gets a Democrat Congress. Also, if you look carefully, you made find some references to a certain Bookworm you know.
It’s such a joy when a friend completes a major, and important, project, and is able to share it with the world. So you can imagine the pleasure I have in sharing the good news with you.
(The link above is to the Kindle version of the book. If you prefer to feel the weight of the paper book in your hand, you can find the print edition here.)