Yet Another Right-Wing Conspiracy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nbcrusader

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
22,071
Location
Southern California
California's govenor made a state-wide address last night, purportedly to take responsibility for some of the problems in the state. He spent most of his speech pointing fingers.

The best part was his assessment of the recall:

Now let's talk about the recall. This recall is bigger than California. What's happening here is part of an ongoing national effort to steal elections Republicans cannot win.

Do you democrats buy into this conspiracy fear-mongering talk? Is this a big conspiracy against another poor democrat or can the people of California actually recall a govenor they no longer want?
 
Conspiracy? Eh, who knows. But there has seemed to be some peculiar moves made by the Republican party of late in order to take a stong grip on the power right now in the US. What's happening right now in CA is a mockery. Then you had the incident here in Texas not too long ago...

I read an article recently about this that listed quite a few examples of legal but very backhanded moves the Republicans have made as a party of late in order to gain more seats. I'll see if I can find it and post it later.
 
Why is the California recall a "mockery"? The law allowing for a recall has been in place for nearly a century, and dozens upon dozens of attempted recalls have failed. Over two million people have signed petitions to request the recall and it will take a majority of the voters to actually boot Davis from office. To me, this looks like a vibrant democracy.
 
The recall itself I don't know much about...but it's the aftermath of the recall that I believe to be a mockery. I can choose from a former child star, porn star, porn mag owner, a horrible actor who preaches against violence but has made his living off it, and many many others. And the winner can technically win off of something like 14%... If someone had enough friends, fans, etc. they could win this without even touching upon the issues. I think that's a mockery...
 
(technically, you could win with only .8% of the vote, given the 135 candidates)

You raise another issue regarding access to the political process. Too often I hear the complaint that we do not have enough choices, two major parties and a couple of minor parties. What would be the reaction if California had a substantially higher entry requirement so only those with backing from wealthy groups (unions, business, PACs, etc.) or who are independently wealthy could enter the race? I think it is great that so many can test the political waters, even though 120 of the candidates probably won't collectively garner more than 5% of the vote.

My guess is the winner will have at least 30% of the vote, with a majority of the vote spread between the four leading Republican candidates. Still, it requires a majority of votes to even get to this second question.
 
You raise another issue regarding access to the political process. Too often I hear the complaint that we do not have enough choices, two major parties and a couple of minor parties. What would be the reaction if California had a substantially higher entry requirement so only those with backing from wealthy groups (unions, business, PACs, etc.) or who are independently wealthy could enter the race? I think it is great that so many can test the political waters, even though 120 of the candidates probably won't collectively garner more than 5% of the vote.

I think it's great that so many can enter, but I just wish there was a way to narrow it down to those who are serious about doing something for the state. Many of these running are believe are doing it to boost careers or just get a nice 15 minutes in the spotlight. But money should never be the deciding factor.
 
True, but the "circus" atmosphere is a media creation. Many of the minor candidates only get air time through gimicks loved by televisions (like women in small bikini outfits, etc.).
 
Well, to be honest, I doubt it would take much to find 900,000 Republicans, which is all it took to get a recall, if I remember right.

I think politics, in general, are fucked up. The "conspiracy theories" abound on both ends of the political spectrum.

Melon
 
Bustamante, MEChA and the Media

by Michelle Malkin
Posted Aug 21, 2003


California's Recall Absurdity Matched by the Media's Coverage

Now that Democrat Cruz Bustamante is California's gubernatorial recall front-runner, we can look forward to in-depth media investigations of the Latino candidate's long-held ties to the racial separatist group MEChA, right?

Ha.

While Katie Couric complains about GOP candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger being "the son of a Nazi party member" and international media outlets assail Schwarzenegger adviser Pete Wilson as "anti-immigrant" and "racially divisive," the liberal press has been stone-cold silent on Bustamante's connection to one of the nation's most virulently racist organizations.

As a student at Fresno State University in the 1970s, Bustamante was an active member of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan , or MEChA, which stands for the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan. Bustamante repeatedly denies having a "radical ethnic agenda," but has refused to disassociate himself from his Mechista roots. In fact, Bustamante recently returned to Fresno State for a separate Latino commencement ceremony founded by two of his Chicano activist classmates.

MEChA has been dismissed by some as a harmless social club, but it operates an identity politics indoctrination machine on publicly subsidized college and high school campuses nationwide that would make David Duke and the KKK turn green with envy. MEChA members in the University of California system have rioted in Los Angeles, editorialized that federal immigration "pigs should be killed, every single one" in San Diego, and are suspected of breaking into a conservative student publication's offices and stealing its entire print run in Berkeley.

MEChA's symbol is an eagle clutching a dynamite stick and machete-like weapon in its claws; its motto is " Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada (For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing)." The MEChA Constitution calls on members to "promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza (race) with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan." "Aztlan" is the group's term for the vast southwestern U.S. expanse, from parts of Washington and Oregon down to California and Arizona and over to Texas, which MEChA claims to be a mythical homeland and seeks to reconquer for Mexico ( reconquista ).

MEChA's liberation agenda, outlined in El Plan de Aztlan , states defiantly:

"We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent. Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner 'gabacho' who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture."

Substitute "Aryan" for "mestizo" and "white" for "bronze." Not much difference between the nutty philosophy of Bustamante's MEChA and Papa Schwarzenegger's evil Nazi Party. To date, however, the only exposure Bustamante's MEChA history has received has been on the Internet.

In a critical article on Bustamante published by David Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine.com last week, Lowell Ponte notes that "Like Nazism, MEChA has acquired more than a tinge of racism. In their tactics to advance Latinos and 'La Raza,' many of its activists have directed racist attacks against not only white-skinned Anglos but also against blacks, Asian-Americans and Jews -- in fact, against every non-Latino group."

Popular Internet blogger Tacitus points out: "It's tempting to dismiss this as a youthful affiliation that means nothing today -- but that temptation would be wrong. There are certain associations that are socially tainting (and justly so) in the modern day, and they don't have statutes of limitations. Former Klansmen and former Nazis don't get a pass unless they spend a great deal of time and energy apologizing for and explaining themselves in a convincing manner."

Why should Bustamante, a public figure already known to have used a racial epithet in the past (he infamously used the word "******" while addressing a Black History Month event two years ago) get a pass? Or, for that matter, former California State Assembly Speaker and Los Angeles mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa, State Assemblyman Gil Cadillo, State Sen. Joe Baca, and Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva -- all unapologetic Mechistas?

Ms. Couric, I know you'll get to the bottom of this. They don't call you Hardball Katie for nothing.

Mrs. Malkin is author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores (Regnery).
 
deep said:
Mrs. Malkin is author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores (Regnery).

Does she have a trademark on "Fair and Balanced" as well?

Melon
 
I can hear the liberals rolling their eyes.

Let's take a look at the coverage in the three days. Bustamante proposed the largest tax increase in California history and it gets little coverage. One of Arnold's spokespersons suggests that a tax increase in one area is a possibility if there is a net tax decrease, and the media goes ballistic (forcing the spokesperson to retract the statement).

Bustamante will get an easy ride by the press. Maybe as governor we can really see how tax & spend democrats can f:censored:k up a state.
 
Arnold has made his bed. His high profile is the only thing that can win him this election, so the extra attention that comes with that he better be able to handle.

He pisses me off because he calls himself a Republican but if he sat down and made a list of his beliefs and feelings on issues he definitely falls on the Democratic side. Then he has several of his advisors that are Democrats as well.

But when you think about it, it's genius. A democrat running as a republican. It's funny because you now see republicans agreeing with issues that they would never agree with if they were presented by an evil democrat. But coming out of Arnold's mouth it seems to be ok..... what a joke.
 
nbcrusader said:
Maybe as governor we can really see how tax & spend democrats can f:censored:k up a state.

Well, as we can see with our president, we can really see how tax cut and spend Republicans can bankrupt a state. :up:

Melon
 
melon said:


Well, as we can see with our president, we can really see how tax cut and spend Republicans can bankrupt a state. :up:

Melon

Hmmm. Now tell me which is better. A deficit with your money in your pocket or a deficit with your money in the state's pocket??

No California economic stimulus package coming out of Sacramento yet.....
 
Bush's federal tax cuts means that the federal government wishes to do less, and, as a result, shove the financial burden onto the states. That's what we're seeing overall with our nation, and I believe is certainly compounding California's financial problems, not to mention the budgetary problems of the rest of the nation.

For California or any state to release an "economic stimulus" package (which none of them ever will, because they are already in trouble), they would have to similarly disown their responsibilities and pass the burden onto local governments. Unlike Bush, though, who can come off as a "hero," governors are often held more responsible for local community troubles and financial cuts. That's certainly not so for Bush, as he will never be held responsible for state government troubles and financial cuts--even if, in some cases, it might be true.

Bush's bribery checks have to come from somewhere, you know.

Melon
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:


Hmmm. Now tell me which is better. A deficit with your money in your pocket or a deficit with your money in the state's pocket??


It is better to have a competent President like Bill Clinton. He had the federal budget on a surplus paying down the national debt.

Now we have an administration spending money like a streetwalker on crack.
 
nbcrusader said:


Deep, what is your opinion of MEChA?

I don?t know a whole lot about mecha.
If mecha?s goal is to return California to Mexico,
I do not believe they will have any success.
I got the article I posted from the Human Events web page.
It is a bias article.

I am not one who believes I am qualified to tell Latinos how they should feel.
I think a lot of minorities have a right to be unhappy with the treatment they have experienced in this country.

You and I have benefited tremendously from affirmative action because of the subgroup we belong to.
 
Last edited:
Clinton passed a Deficit Reduction Bill in 1993, and then a Balanced Budget Bill in 1997. Guess what? He reduced the deficit (tremendously) and not only balanced the budget but had record surplusses.

It does not seem like a difficult thing for me to see why he made things work.

So nbcrusader. Not to pick on you, because I respect you for being one of the few conservatives that actually speaks up around here and can argue intelligently, BUT

In your own personal financial life and budget, what makes more sense, balancing your budget to fit your earnings with your spending and having some to put away each month in savings,

or.... wracking up huge credit card debts that you figure will somehow get paid in the future??
 
womanfish said:
In your own personal financial life and budget, what makes more sense, balancing your budget to fit your earnings with your spending and having some to put away each month in savings,

or.... wracking up huge credit card debts that you figure will somehow get paid in the future??

I absolutely agree with you. Reduce spending to fit my income.

The Davis Democrats do not agree. They want to continue spending and raise taxes when they go overboard. California can be summarized by three numbers from Davis' first term:

California's population has increased by 21%

State revenue increased by 28%

State spending increased by 36%

But when you take big campaign contributions from state labor organizations and other special interests, you need to keep funding the hand that feeds you.
 
Democrats don't want to raise taxes, they just don't think it's responsible to cut taxes when you are facing record deficits.

Republicans want all the same social programs and spending that Democrats do, but they also want lower taxes. You can't have both.
 
I think we are mixing state and federal issues.

One thing is true, you will never find a "bad" government program that is easy to cut. Because if it is "bad", why did the government create it in the first place?

I'm not sure everyone will share your assessement that Republicans want the same spending levels as Democrats.
 
nbcrusader said:



I'm not sure everyone will share your assessement that Republicans want the same spending levels as Democrats.

You are right about politicians not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them. At the same time they want to slap or even lop off the hand that does not feed them.


The truth is the Bush Administration and many Republicans want higher spending than Democrats do.
It is only a question of where the money goes.
 
btw, i think Davis is a very poor Governor.

I think we are mixing state and federal issues.


That may be the case.
Is the justification for the CA recall is the 38 billion deficit and not being up front with the people of CA about it?

Well, if Bush was only as poor in the budget dept. as Davis our national deficit would be around 290 billion instead of 400-500 billion.

The Bush Administration is guiltier of misleading the people about their deficit than Davis is.

Carl Rove is smart to keep the White House out of the CA recall. (at least publicly)

It is best not to mix state and federal issues. :yes:
 
Back
Top Bottom