The tumult and the shouting have died. The captains and the kings have departed. The election is over. What happened?
The impressive showing and meteoric rise of Obama across the nation served notice to the entire country and world that a new era has arrived—an era marked by renewed hope and optimism about the future. The old hackneyed tactics are no longer good enough. In fact, this time, fed by the reckless behavior of powerful people, they backfired. It was indeed a historic election.
And in the most important measure of the California election season, Proposition 93, the scam and sham of this year, was defeated. All the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans who actively or passively supported it, and the governor, who inexplicably also supported it, came up short. Although outspent by more than two to one, the “no” vote prevailed in this uneven battle against lies, distortions and money. The people won.
This tawdry campaign failed to trump the wisdom and common sense of the California electorate, and that, along with Obama’s showing, is a very good thing indeed. I cut the governor, who is a reformer by heart and deed, some slack. In attempting to affect change in a broken and corrupted system, he thought, incorrectly, that this might be an aid. He was wrong. The people saw the inherent dishonesty in the Legislature’s attempt to perpetuate themselves in office.
In all this chicanery, one man stood up against all the entrenched interests: Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. It was a classic profile in courage in the Kennedy sense, and places Poizner in the front ranks of leaders in the state, and gives him a guaranteed cat bird seat in the next race for Governor.
Poizner earned the mantle of reformer and surely personified the description—if not immortal, then quite interesting—of three-time presidential loser, William Jennings Bryan: “A single man when cloaked in the armor of a righteous cause is stronger than all the hosts of error.” Poizner took a stand, he was courageous and he risked the animosity of the powerful in the political class. He must be honored by those who value integrity and fairness. The people of California owe him a great deal of credit.
For sure, in this election, the prizes belong to Obama and Poizner.
Poinzer doesn’t have a chance against the eBay candidates: Westly and Whitman.
They’re the Silicon Valley candidates and represent the future of Caleeforna.
They neutralize Poizner’s money and have a better resume.
Westly, by the way, was an Obama co-chair. Given his talent and resume, he’s gotta be in the Obama cabinet in an Obama White House.
If that happens, he’s unbeatable for governor.
Good posting Tom.
Being a champion of both Barak Obama & Steve Poizner seems oddly schizophrenic.
One is a conservative who believes that Government should play a very limited role. The other is a socialist who believes that it is Government’s job to rob money from the people who earn it and give it to the people who work for Government bureaucracies.
The popularity of Barak Obama and the popularity of American Idol represent the same phenomenon- the ability of the mainstream media to manufacture, package, and sell just about anything to a gullible and ignorant American electorate.
I would like to believe that Mr. McEnery is correct about Poizner being likely to become our next Governor. Unfortunately it is probably Oberhouser who is correct. Californians will always vote for the candidate who promises to hand out the most freebies.
Yep, Westly and Poizner are clearly frontrunners in 2010. (Angelides is California’s John Kerry, unfortunately for him.) I think Poizner has a pretty good chance, but his challenge will be getting the far-right (think Thousand Oaks, Irvine, and Bakersfield) to vote for him, regardless of what plays out here in the Bay Area.
I’m thrilled Prop 93 went to defeat. In exchange for changing the terms, we were supposed to get a new system for redistricting. Wasn’t that the original promise Assembly and Senate leaders were making?
I am disappointed about the gaming propositions. That giant sucking sound you hear is the disproportionate impact of problem gambling on the poor, their families, and their neighbors. And the adjacent overtone is the sound of budget dollars going to pay for social services to help clean up the situation throughout the state. There’s a reason “Cops” is regularly filmed “on location” in Las Vegas and Reno.
And that “era marked by renewed hope and optimism about the future”, etc. etc. etc. that everyone keeps crediting Obama with? The same could be said about McCain, or Romney, or Huckabee, none of whom has “direct lineage” with past leadership in their party and all of whom have been at odds with the status quo at one point or another.
I’m just glad the primary race is far from over. This is how it should be every four years. Enough with the appointments off the “deep bench” by party machines. Ahem, I’m talking to some of you in East San Jose, too. You know who you are.
If Poizner was courageous in opposing proposition 93, what should we think of Chuck Reed, Jim Beall and Joe Coto who all supported the proposition?
Tom, will Poizner allow registered lobbyists to work for his administration??
I think he plans to make that same pledge as Edwards did, and, well, Tom, there still will be a place for you here in San Jose.
“Profiles in Courage??”” Give us a break.
Poizner blatantly bought his way into the Insurance Commissioner’s position. He is the embodiment of a skewed campaign system where money trumps experience and ability and rich candidates ultimately prevail. People like Poizner should not have this advantage. Each candidate should have the same amount of money to spend so people are elected as a result of their merits, not their money. I can’t warm up to Poizner because he was not elected fair and square. He made a purchase and got himself the elected office he had been wanting, just like going out and buying himself a shiny red convertible.
#7 Mark T – Yes, the campaign system is skewed but don’t you think that labor and the democratic machine buy their candidates into office? The difference with Poizner is that he used his own money to help get himself elected instead of the money of others. And please do not always equate experience with ability – that is abundantly clear!
Good spin. But, your posting didn’t exactly capture what happened in San Jose yesterday.
While Obama did well in caucus states, Clinton’s primary win in California was even more impressive. Despite a pre-election Zogby poll showing that she would be crushed, Clinton won by 10 points statewide. In Santa Clara County, Hillary Clinton won by 16 percentage points – besting Obama by 32,000 votes among our local Democrats.
I’m very happy to see the Prop 93 failed. Term limits are important to keep in tact.
Obama, according to the most recent report I saw on Channel 7, with 96% of the votes counted, was only behind by 7 points. Clinton isn’t winning by a land slide by any stretch of the imagination.
Does anyone know what happened with BAREC? Did it get on the ballot this time? Did they win/lose?
SJD, I am in complete agreement with you regarding experience (not necessarily) suggesting ability. Our own Mr. Unopposed, aka Jim Beall is a walking talking (ummm scratch ummm that ummm talking ummmm part) example of the point you made above, and my main motivation to vote NO on 93. Alas, if past actions are any indication, Beall is already likely zeroing in on an office he can pursue unopposed or virtually so, when his term is up.
Kathleen, per what I’ve seen on line, the BAREC issue passed 60/40 so it looks like the last big parcel of open space in Santa Clara is about to be paved over. Anybody who likes to use the back way to get into Valley Fair should enjoy the relatively empty streets while they can.
If anyone showed “inherent dishonesty” it was the no on 93 people. They basically savaged a solid initiative by repeating the names of Fabian Nunez and Don Perata 500 times.
Whether you like these guys or not is beside the point. Sure it would have kept them in longer but that doesn’t take away the fact that the term limits we have in this state are broken. How can we run an effective legislature when every two years a third of these guys who come in are new and confused? You know what happens when we have that many inexperienced members? They fall to the mercy of the lobbyists, interest groups and yes party leaders like Fabian and Don.
Over the long term this initiative would have limited the power of people like Fabian Nunez because after six years or so legislators develop their own identity after they figure out how the Assembly or Senate works and they are less inclined to follow the Speaker or Senate Pro Tem. And also let me point out that these measure would have kept TERM LIMITS INTACT. Once these guys spend 14 years in either house, they would have been done.
As for calling Steve Poizner courageous Tom, I think you owe the Kennedy family an apology. The guy is a hack who didn’t do this out of any moral obligation. Poizner wants to run for Governor and he opposed 93 to bring the Republican base on his side because right now they see him as too moderate. It allowed him to be the Conservative crusader against the evils of Liberal Don Perata and Fabian Nunez.
And speaking of Obama’s rise across the nation let’s go back home for a minute. Clinton cleaned his clock in this state winning the overwhelming majority of congressional districts and counties and after a month or two she will emerge as the Democratic nominee and President of the United States in 2009.
Obama didn’t win California because so many people voted by mail well before the “surge” when Hillary seemed invincible and Bill hadn’t yet opened his big yap.
J, it was my understanding that besides wiping the slate clean for existing politicians, the whole proposition didn’t address the redistricting issue and was supposedly an attempt to skirt it. The smear ads about Nunez and Peratta were smarmy and had no bearing on my decision.
I agree with you 100% about Poizner’s motives and have no intention of supporting his purchase of the governor’s position. He might have to outbid Meg Whitman, though.
Most people I know who were on the fence between Hillary and Barack ended up going with Hillary. Interestingly, every last one of them had an apologetic tone when they advised of their decision. Being fellow boomers, they likely related to the young voters who are behind Barack and wistfully thought back to JFK, McCarthy (not Joe) and McGovern, but felt that Hillary was more “their” candidate this time around. I see no reason to apologize and truth be told, will be happy with either Hillary or Barack in the top spot. Whether it’s Hillary or Barack who gets the nomination, one would be nuts not to select the other as their running mate. That dream team would crush McCain, especially after his 100 years in Iraq remark.
Mark:
I wish redistricting was addressed as well and was disappointed that it didn’t show up in prop 93 this time around. Nonetheless I still think the initiative in and of itself was a sensible way to deal with the term limits problem and would have put a stop to the musical chairs game in state government.
Even as a big Clinton supporter I will absolutely rally around Obama should he get the nomination. McCain’s policies are virtually identical to those of Bush/Cheney and we need to put an end to that this Fall. If they have to do it on the same ticket, so be it.
#12- Thank you Mark T. How sad.
J,
Term limits are an excellent idea. In fact, many of the authors of US Constitution felt that the absence of term limits on the Legislature and Presidency was a serious defect in the government structure.
The idea of rotating the membership of a legislative body dates back at least to ancient Greece – both Athens and Sparta imposed limits on the members of their Council of 500 and ephorate, respectively. And Roman government continued the practice as well. Term limits are not a recent concept dating from the late 20th century.
The fundamental problem is the cozy relationship between special interests, whether labor or business, and the legislators who take their campaign money and fail to exercise independent judgment.
Jesse Unruh, the late speaker of the California Assembly summarized the core of issue with two quotes:
– “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”
– “If you can’t take their money, drink their liquor, **** their women, and then come in here the next day and vote against them, you don’t belong here.”
Trouble is, most of the career-politicians in Sacramento and Washington can’t vote against them (lobbyists) so they don’t belong in either place.
Today, more than ever, we need citizen-legislators far more than we need career-politicians.
Steve #5 – Anyone who crafted Prop.93 was misleading; anyone who supported it, was self-serving or confused. Just a few, maybe the above, -:), were genuinely trying for reform. The terms should be 12 yrs. (we tried that in 1990, Willie Brown & the Reps in Sacramento killed the real reform and got the draconian one); it should be tied to redistricting (this was the broken word); NO grandfathering should be allowed. This is the way to try to FIX this corrupt and broken system. TMcE
Mr. Rowen – I proudly point out that I own property in San Pedro SQ. & a piece of the Sharks, and that is representing my own family and our invested dollars. I thus publicly list that complying in letter and spirit w. the regulation and transparency that I encouraged in San Jose. Please don’t insult the intelligence of our readers by equating that w. a “lobbyist.” I have never been afraid of the far lefts’ or the far rights’ lies – AND have turned down more offers for lobbying $$$ than you will make in your entire career & your web site! TMcE
J: You seem to be thoughtful, consider this: In 1990, I was chair of the 12 yr. term, campaign reform, fair redistricing initiative – LWVoters, Common Cause, and every newspaper endorsed it. Willie Brown and the Reps in Sac, both parties, raised $$$ and lied it into defeat. Unfortunately, a more draconian one, w. 6 and 8 yrs. did pass – the one in place today. Poetic justice and bad for the state – it did, however, as mine would have, triple the number of women and Latinos in the legislature – so I’ll shed no tears for Willie’s “truth teller successors.” TMcE