Several years ago, upon being inaugurated as mayor of San Francisco, California uber-pol Willie Brown exulted, "The weather here is fine; there’s no snow and no Republicans." In the broader context of the highly-gerrymandered Golden State, Brown's single-party electorate was far from an aberration. Most of California's congressional districts are drawn to ensure an easy victory for the incumbent party, in most cases the Democratic Party.
That insulation from opposition, like any artificial monopoly on power, has incubated a considerable amount of both arrogance and ignorance among the California congressional delegation--a delegation that exercises de facto control over the House of Representatives today. From National Journal today:
[F]urther complicating her efforts, say several House members, is a rising animosity within the Caucus toward a perceived lack of sympathy from Pelosi and other House members from relatively safe districts in California -- and who hold so many key chairmanships and others leadership posts -- to the election fears of their colleagues from other states.
"Across the Caucus, there is growing dissatisfaction and resentment -- not so much directed at Pelosi --- but with her cadre of California liberals seen as continually driving her House agenda, regardless of the hits the rest of us will have to take," said one House Democrat.
The Californians cited most frequently -- and angrily -- are Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Education and Labor Chairman George Miller, both with key roles in healthcare legislation. But also mentioned are Ethics Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Anna Eshoo, Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman, and Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra.
"She seems to only be listening to this small cadre, and the rank and file are expected to simply fall in line," complained a senior Democrat; he said this is contributing to Caucus animosity over the prospect of being asked once again to walk the plank on a healthcare bill, after already passing a bill last year, on top of climate legislation establishing a cap-and-trade emissions program.
This California-related blowback was one of the reasons -- though certainly not the only one -- for the mini-uprising and backlash over Rep. Pete Stark's presumed ascension to the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, following Rangel's announcement he was temporarily stepping down, says one member.
Governing from the hard left was always a losing proposition in a country where barely a fifth of voters describe themselves as "liberal," but clearly La Nancy and her Left Coast coterie weren't sharp enough to figure that out.
They're learning now--and the lessons will continue for at least the next nine months.
They are also going to give the country their own style of Progressive/Marxist governing, you know the one that takes a State like California with an economy ranked with countries, 7th largest in the world and makes it a banana republic. They are well on their way to ruin the whole country, Comrades Nancy, Harry and Barrack are hell bent on giving us 'health care' like Cuba's.ReplyDelete
I was pleased no end the other day when I read that the exudos of folks from California could mean they lose 4 or 5 congressional seats. Now, if we could only pick the ones to be eliminated....ReplyDelete
There is a ballot measure this year that would require that an independent commission redraw congressional district. Presumably, this will eliminate some of the safe seats allotted for both parties. The same commission is drawing up new state legislative districts to overturn single-party rule.ReplyDelete
Murphy's law states, "If anything can go wrong, it will"ReplyDelete
1st Corollary: "It can"
2nd Corollary: "It should"
MacGillicuddy's Corollary: "It will happen at the most inopportune time"
3rd Corollary: "If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one which causes the most damage will be first"
4th Corollary: "Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse"
5th Corollary: "If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something."
Let us apply Murphy's law to the Democrats. They were prepared to campaign in the last election; they were prepared to denounce their opponents; they were prepared to promulgate hair brained ideas, but they were not prepared to lead. Nor were they prepared to accept responsibility, but they are getting what they deserve.
The Democrats, as usual, lied in the campaign. Obama said that he was a moderate; he told the population what they wanted to hear. But, where the American public thought Obama wanted to take us is no where near where the Democrats want us to be. Much of the reaction of the public is disillusionment.
Every so often, it is good for America to elect the Democrats into control. Sure, it impoverishes us, wrecks out institutions and gets American's killed, but it reinforces reality. It is only way to get rid of the hair brained ideas which the Democrats foisted on us in the past.
The world is a dangerous place. We have enemies. There are no easy solutions. There are no end to stupid ideas; rarely are they contrasted with what worked in the past.
History is no longer being taught in school, so people thinking that are creating brand new mistakes. The road to hell (or a governmental program) is paved with good intentions. There are talkers and there are doers; they rarely inhabit the same body. Even the most screwed up of governmental programs has its defenders. When you elect friends to Washington, they stop being friends.
What Murphy's laws indicates is that we should not place reliance in things or other people. If we depend on the government to save us, as the Democrats do, then the government will let us down. Why? Because the people we put in charge of the government have needs of their own to satisfy. And their needs are invariably harmful to us.
The corollary of that is, "The least government is best and the one closest to us is the most responsive. The closest government to you is self government. You are least likely to harm or steal from yourself."
Republicans had better learn from this, and not put Jerry Lewis back in charge of anything. His attitudes on spending - and his dismissive comments about earmarks - were definitely contributory to the Republican 2006 electoral disaster.ReplyDelete
Loved the Steely Dan reference, from "My Old School." I'm sure that part of California's problems are related to it's education system, especially higher ed, which seems to waste an inordinate amount of its resources on navel gazing (your minority here) studies departments, "conferences" that merely provide echo chambers for radical groups and politically correct PoMo nonsense that does nothing to benefit the greater society and often increases the tax and legal burdens on ordinary citizens. Intellectual fads have real consequences in the design of schools, zoning laws, environmental demands, food mandates, etc.ReplyDelete
There isn't any idea silly enough that it can't be seized upon by "progressives" as an excuse to give themselves more power over others, and universities have become the nests where a lot of them are hatched.
We in California are also re-drawing the lines with an independent citizen review board, as mandated by a recently passed proposition.ReplyDelete
The Gerrymander is in its last days. Prepare for a tsunami of "change."