This just in: Democrats oppose elections!

The Democratic Party is hurting.  It's hurting because it's betraying their fundamental raisons d'être. As I noted yesterday, the Democrats are betraying their legacy as the patrons and champions of minorities in order to prevent conservative judicial appointments.  Today, Say Anything notes that in our contemporary "behind the looking glass" politics, California Democrats Oppose Special Elections.  (And here I thought that every vote was supposed to count.  How Pollyannaish of me!)

First let me say that the article he links to is worthless. The opening paragraph presents us with:

SAN FRANCISCO

- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is steaming toward a special election he insists is necessary to return "power to the people." But it's not clear "the people" understand why.

Tell us please, o selfless servants of the people!  Yet paragraphs 2-4 dutifully present the needed "conflict n' controversy" that any good journalist story needs, but also the Democrats' opposition to the special election, and hinting at  Schwarzenegger’s yucky campaign financing: It isn't until the 5th paragraph that he understand what he's working towards:

Two years after he was swept into office in a popular recall election, the Republican governor wants a special election to consider measures aimed at restricting state spending and curbing the influence of public employee unions.

Critics have questioned why he is forcing such a high-stakes showdown over issues that appear less than urgent, especially since the state's next regularly scheduled election is little more than a year away.

"We don't want a special election," said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, who has emerged as one of the governor's most frequent critics. "This is a corporate-funded effort to foist a bunch of issues on the electorate, none of which have any urgency."

During a radio interview last week, Schwarzenegger said he would call a special election "no matter what." He is raising millions of dollars in campaign donations this weekend during a swing through

Florida

,

Illinois

and

Texas

.

It isn't until the 5th paragraph that he understand what he's working towards:

Schwarzenegger is staking his political capital on three initiatives: a measure to delay tenure for teachers to help districts weed out poor ones; a plan to redraw congressional and state legislative districts; and an automatic cap on state spending.

Clearly this is an enormous waste of time.  What Californians really want are more prisons, more fund-our-schools bond initiatives, and more action on everyday items like sawdust or ultra-violet rays "known to the State of California" which can be outlawed or egregiously labeled.  Maybe we could make all public buildings feng-shui compliant.

C'mon, people.  Are there any more important issues facing state government than poorly-performing schools, gerrymandered districts which obey the letter of election law but violate the spirit of elections, and disastrous public sector spending?  What does it mean for the electorate?  Why, let's ask those remarkable thinkers known as "Democratic strategists:"

So far, the prospect of an election has done little more than enrage Democrats and labor activists. Several county officials declared they cannot afford to shoulder their part of the $80 million cost. One county registrar said she would hold a special election only under court order.

"These initiatives are not life and death issues that have inflamed the imagination of the public," said longtime Democratic strategist Garry South. "This is all being driven by testosterone — sticking the taxpayers with an $80 million election so

Arnold

can demonstrate his manhood."

Setting aside the tawdry cheap shots that we can expect from California Dems, let's consider what's really at issue here, i.e., what California voters need to confront, which, I might add, are not Arnold's manhood, campaign contributions, or whether or not the initiatives "have inflamed the imagination of the public":

Democratic legislators have rebuffed talk of a legislative compromise on his initiatives. In radio interviews, Schwarzenegger said that true change will come only if the state's political culture is fundamentally altered.

"That whole mess was created by the same people that are still sitting there in

Sacramento

," Schwarzenegger said. "It's the same unions, the same special interests, the same legislators. The only thing that changed a year and a half ago is the governor."

(snip)

The biggest showdown could be over a so-called "paycheck protection" initiative, which would require labor unions to get permission from their members before using the money for political purposes. Schwarzenegger is expected to endorse the measure, which Democrats and union leaders have called a declaration of war on the labor movement.

Imagine! A call for accountability!  Why, we can't have that... it's wrong! In the words of the great fictional lawmaker, Gov. William J. LePetomaine, "Holy S*** gentlemen, we've gotta do something to protect our phoney baloney jobs.....we've gotta do something about this immediately, immediately."

I agree wholeheartedly with Rob @ Say Anything, when he says,

The cost of the special election is a ruse. Democrats are really opposed to this because they absolutely do not want their ability to spend future tax dollars limited by an electorate fed up with government waste, something

California

is awash with. This is really sort of sad. Basically, Democrats don’t want Californian’s to express directly their wishes as to the spending of their own tax dollars.

That’s not very democratic of the Democrats.

However, he does get somewhat confused on the issue of campaign contributions. The article's throw-away smear is that

Arnold

goes out of state to raise campaign contributions.  He asks,

"Why is the governor of

California

traveling to other states to gather campaign donations?"

It seems to me that the Governor could and should raise money from wherever he needs it.  Let me explain.

The

California

market is really quite large.  When Grey Davis was in charge, he didn't waste any opportunity to remind everyone in ear-shot that the state's economy, if considered as a stand-alone country, would be the seventh largest in the world.  Despite the size of the economy, the state is in remarkably poor shape, due mainly to an out-of-control public sector.

Because the

California

market is so large, they have a disproportionate effect on the rest of the states. 

California

often leads the country in developing new and costly regulations.  These regulations, moreover, are proposed in a, "If you don't like it, don't do business here" fashion, which stifles economic growth here in the state, but also raises the cost on out-of-state businesses wishing to do business in

California

. There would be more businesses investing in

California

, not to speak of the ones that are fleeing to no-corporate-tax

Nevada

, if the state regulatory regimes where less hostile toward private sector enterprise.

Arnold

's mandate was clearly the need to reform state government, but also to lead efforts to improve economic growth in the private sector.  In

California

, "the same unions, the same special interests, the same legislators" which he is confronting are key players in creating and maintain the dysfunctional state government which is the chief roadblock for economic growth, and the primary laboratory for hair-brained state regulation that is eventually adopted by other states.  Furthermore, to deliver the prosperity which he has promised us, he must attract out-of-state investments, which are quite frankly, leery of the legislative climate in

Sacramento

.

Thus, it is in the interest of Californians, as well as other Americans, that this State's government be reformed.  This is why out-of-state money is flowing into

Arnold

's coffer. And, unlike most, I don't see out-of-state contributions as being somehow inherently bad, because, the alternative is that if left to their own devices, California Democrats would legislate more public sector jobs, regulation, and higher taxes in order to increase their power, and implement their un-democratic agendas.  And we would pay a dollar more per gallon of gas than any other state, we would have to pay several thousand dollars to register a car for one year, we would sink more money into public schools than any other state, per student, only to spend 30% on the bureacracy, and producing Californian political science majors that don't understand that the Judiciary is, in fact, an independent branch of government in the U.S.  We would live in a place best described words of the Dead Kennedys:

Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face

Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay

California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California

Okay, so that last bit is somewhat hyperbolic, but let's face facts here, the public sector in this state is a brake on growth and prosperity.  California Democrats and their paymasters, the Public Sector Unions, are not governing with the interests of the greater good in mind, but their own.  The Democrats are not the party of the people, they are the party of the bureaucrat.