Democrats have picked up 28 seats in the House to take control, with a possibility of perhaps two more. Democrats hold a slight 229 to something majoirty at the moment. A narrow advantage.
Democrats have picked four seats in the Senate, with Montana the two candidats separated by 1800 votes, with Democrats John Tester ahead. Jim Webb leads George Allen by 7000+ in Virginia. Both will likely go to recounts. They might not be decided for weeks. If Democrats prevail, they will control the Senate 51-49–the slimmest of margins.
Charlie Brown narrowly loses to John Doolittle. Jerry McNerney defeats Pombo.
In Yolo County, the them continues. Matt Rexroad leads Frank Siefferman by a narrow 600 votes with some precincts perhaps outstanding. Much closer than perhaps some expected.
SMUD appears to be going down to a split decision–H passing by 400 and I failing by 400. Don’t ask me how that happens.
Target is passing by the narrowest of margins–a 600 vote gape on Measure K. A further illustration of the very narrow divided in the City of Davis. Didn’t council warn about dividing the city? Meanwhile Choice Voting wins by 1600, an advisory vote that had no campaign against it.
Statewide, the horrendous campaign of Phil Angelides for Governor doesn’t doom the Democrats, as they win across the board for the constitutional offices except Bustamante going down thoroughly to defeat.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Well.. we got our referendum on Measure K and it looks like we lost by 600 votes. I’ll accept that as the will of the people of Davis although I certainly would be interested in a look at the early-submitted absentee ballots that clearly carried the day for the Yes on K victory. The Target campaign had the resources to target(unhappy pun) those voters who voted Yes by absentee before the NO campaign gathered momentum. I would be interested in the signature verifications on these ballots. I see the No on Measure K campaign as a success.
Going toe to toe with Target Corp.,
a grassroots group,armed with 1/12 the financial resources exposed Target as Wal-Mart Lite, raised important issues concerning our community’s values and challenged us to step up and walk the walk as well as talking the talk. In addition, as in Measure X, The No on X campaign challenged the current gang of three’s agenda and forced them to come out into the open. The Yes on K campaign was a rerun of their Yes on X methods of misinformation and confabulation. Davis voters DO NOT FORGET. This will be demonstrated at the next Council election either at them directly or their surrogates( Ye shall know them by the company they keep).
Well.. we got our referendum on Measure K and it looks like we lost by 600 votes. I’ll accept that as the will of the people of Davis although I certainly would be interested in a look at the early-submitted absentee ballots that clearly carried the day for the Yes on K victory. The Target campaign had the resources to target(unhappy pun) those voters who voted Yes by absentee before the NO campaign gathered momentum. I would be interested in the signature verifications on these ballots. I see the No on Measure K campaign as a success.
Going toe to toe with Target Corp.,
a grassroots group,armed with 1/12 the financial resources exposed Target as Wal-Mart Lite, raised important issues concerning our community’s values and challenged us to step up and walk the walk as well as talking the talk. In addition, as in Measure X, The No on X campaign challenged the current gang of three’s agenda and forced them to come out into the open. The Yes on K campaign was a rerun of their Yes on X methods of misinformation and confabulation. Davis voters DO NOT FORGET. This will be demonstrated at the next Council election either at them directly or their surrogates( Ye shall know them by the company they keep).
Well.. we got our referendum on Measure K and it looks like we lost by 600 votes. I’ll accept that as the will of the people of Davis although I certainly would be interested in a look at the early-submitted absentee ballots that clearly carried the day for the Yes on K victory. The Target campaign had the resources to target(unhappy pun) those voters who voted Yes by absentee before the NO campaign gathered momentum. I would be interested in the signature verifications on these ballots. I see the No on Measure K campaign as a success.
Going toe to toe with Target Corp.,
a grassroots group,armed with 1/12 the financial resources exposed Target as Wal-Mart Lite, raised important issues concerning our community’s values and challenged us to step up and walk the walk as well as talking the talk. In addition, as in Measure X, The No on X campaign challenged the current gang of three’s agenda and forced them to come out into the open. The Yes on K campaign was a rerun of their Yes on X methods of misinformation and confabulation. Davis voters DO NOT FORGET. This will be demonstrated at the next Council election either at them directly or their surrogates( Ye shall know them by the company they keep).
Well.. we got our referendum on Measure K and it looks like we lost by 600 votes. I’ll accept that as the will of the people of Davis although I certainly would be interested in a look at the early-submitted absentee ballots that clearly carried the day for the Yes on K victory. The Target campaign had the resources to target(unhappy pun) those voters who voted Yes by absentee before the NO campaign gathered momentum. I would be interested in the signature verifications on these ballots. I see the No on Measure K campaign as a success.
Going toe to toe with Target Corp.,
a grassroots group,armed with 1/12 the financial resources exposed Target as Wal-Mart Lite, raised important issues concerning our community’s values and challenged us to step up and walk the walk as well as talking the talk. In addition, as in Measure X, The No on X campaign challenged the current gang of three’s agenda and forced them to come out into the open. The Yes on K campaign was a rerun of their Yes on X methods of misinformation and confabulation. Davis voters DO NOT FORGET. This will be demonstrated at the next Council election either at them directly or their surrogates( Ye shall know them by the company they keep).
You forgot to summarize the results for Governors – Democrats end up with a 28 to 22 edge SAH
You forgot to summarize the results for Governors – Democrats end up with a 28 to 22 edge SAH
You forgot to summarize the results for Governors – Democrats end up with a 28 to 22 edge SAH
You forgot to summarize the results for Governors – Democrats end up with a 28 to 22 edge SAH
That’s true, pick up of six governor seats, my projections were pretty good. It looks right now like Dems are winning Virginia and Montana and will win the Senate, I was a little off there, although I suggested both Missouri and Virginia would be nailbiters.
It will be interesting to see how Souza and Saylor interpret the results of Target. I think most people were not ideological about it, they wanted a cheap and convenient place to shop. I thought the campaign did an awesome job of making that very very tight. Had we been able to better get the shady details out to the public, we might have pulled that one out.
Very disappointed that PG&E was able to confuse the Davis voters.
That’s true, pick up of six governor seats, my projections were pretty good. It looks right now like Dems are winning Virginia and Montana and will win the Senate, I was a little off there, although I suggested both Missouri and Virginia would be nailbiters.
It will be interesting to see how Souza and Saylor interpret the results of Target. I think most people were not ideological about it, they wanted a cheap and convenient place to shop. I thought the campaign did an awesome job of making that very very tight. Had we been able to better get the shady details out to the public, we might have pulled that one out.
Very disappointed that PG&E was able to confuse the Davis voters.
That’s true, pick up of six governor seats, my projections were pretty good. It looks right now like Dems are winning Virginia and Montana and will win the Senate, I was a little off there, although I suggested both Missouri and Virginia would be nailbiters.
It will be interesting to see how Souza and Saylor interpret the results of Target. I think most people were not ideological about it, they wanted a cheap and convenient place to shop. I thought the campaign did an awesome job of making that very very tight. Had we been able to better get the shady details out to the public, we might have pulled that one out.
Very disappointed that PG&E was able to confuse the Davis voters.
That’s true, pick up of six governor seats, my projections were pretty good. It looks right now like Dems are winning Virginia and Montana and will win the Senate, I was a little off there, although I suggested both Missouri and Virginia would be nailbiters.
It will be interesting to see how Souza and Saylor interpret the results of Target. I think most people were not ideological about it, they wanted a cheap and convenient place to shop. I thought the campaign did an awesome job of making that very very tight. Had we been able to better get the shady details out to the public, we might have pulled that one out.
Very disappointed that PG&E was able to confuse the Davis voters.
Sorry I meant PG&E confused the Yolo County voters. I slept a little a last night from about 4 until 5:30 or so. After being up for 24 hours. Brain is not all there.
Sorry I meant PG&E confused the Yolo County voters. I slept a little a last night from about 4 until 5:30 or so. After being up for 24 hours. Brain is not all there.
Sorry I meant PG&E confused the Yolo County voters. I slept a little a last night from about 4 until 5:30 or so. After being up for 24 hours. Brain is not all there.
Sorry I meant PG&E confused the Yolo County voters. I slept a little a last night from about 4 until 5:30 or so. After being up for 24 hours. Brain is not all there.
If, in fact, the Yes on Measure K does not change the General Plan to ALLOW more big box in Davis but rather just addresses the one Target store on 2nd street, as claimed by our city staff,
then there should be no concern if the General Plan is amended back to its prohibition of 140,000 sq. ft. retail now that Target has been approved. This can be done in the upcoming General Plan update but will require a Davis City Council “regime change”.
If, in fact, the Yes on Measure K does not change the General Plan to ALLOW more big box in Davis but rather just addresses the one Target store on 2nd street, as claimed by our city staff,
then there should be no concern if the General Plan is amended back to its prohibition of 140,000 sq. ft. retail now that Target has been approved. This can be done in the upcoming General Plan update but will require a Davis City Council “regime change”.
If, in fact, the Yes on Measure K does not change the General Plan to ALLOW more big box in Davis but rather just addresses the one Target store on 2nd street, as claimed by our city staff,
then there should be no concern if the General Plan is amended back to its prohibition of 140,000 sq. ft. retail now that Target has been approved. This can be done in the upcoming General Plan update but will require a Davis City Council “regime change”.
If, in fact, the Yes on Measure K does not change the General Plan to ALLOW more big box in Davis but rather just addresses the one Target store on 2nd street, as claimed by our city staff,
then there should be no concern if the General Plan is amended back to its prohibition of 140,000 sq. ft. retail now that Target has been approved. This can be done in the upcoming General Plan update but will require a Davis City Council “regime change”.
I’m too disappointed by the SMUD vote. It passed with 60.9 percent in Davis, but failed in the rest of the county. I had heard prior to the election that it was doomed in Sacramento County, where it overwhelmingly lost. What confuses me, though, is what current SMUD ratepayers thought they had to lose by expanding into Yolo County?
Regarding Target in Davis: I thought it would be close, and it was. About half of the precincts aprroved it, and half rejected it. Only three preceincts (the NIMBY precinct in East Mace Ranch and two in the downtown, Old North area) overwhelmingly rejected it. In five others, it was overwhelmingly favored (led by the precincts with the highest percentage of students). In all of the others it was close.
As someone who favored Measure K, I would like to see the council now pass a resolution dedicating some of the $659,000 in new sales tax money that will be generated every year to improving downtown Davis and improving the public infrastructure which serves other locally owned retail businesses.
Statewide, I was most surprised by the victory of McNerney over Pombo. That district is, like so many others, gerrymandered to favor one party (Republicans in this case), that a change seemed unlikely. The McNerney win, I think, was really a reflection of two things: one, tremendous dissatisfaction with George Bush; and two, dissatisfaction with an ideological candidate, Pombo, whose ideological positions were out of step with the moderate views of most of California.
Finally, I’m glad to see that we won’t have Cruz Bustamante to kick around anymore. California is now so overwhelmingly Democratic, that I thought anybody that party nominated would win statewide, unless of course he was running against a charming movie star. But thankfully, the voters saw Cruz for what he is: a corrupt and unguent slimeball.
I’m too disappointed by the SMUD vote. It passed with 60.9 percent in Davis, but failed in the rest of the county. I had heard prior to the election that it was doomed in Sacramento County, where it overwhelmingly lost. What confuses me, though, is what current SMUD ratepayers thought they had to lose by expanding into Yolo County?
Regarding Target in Davis: I thought it would be close, and it was. About half of the precincts aprroved it, and half rejected it. Only three preceincts (the NIMBY precinct in East Mace Ranch and two in the downtown, Old North area) overwhelmingly rejected it. In five others, it was overwhelmingly favored (led by the precincts with the highest percentage of students). In all of the others it was close.
As someone who favored Measure K, I would like to see the council now pass a resolution dedicating some of the $659,000 in new sales tax money that will be generated every year to improving downtown Davis and improving the public infrastructure which serves other locally owned retail businesses.
Statewide, I was most surprised by the victory of McNerney over Pombo. That district is, like so many others, gerrymandered to favor one party (Republicans in this case), that a change seemed unlikely. The McNerney win, I think, was really a reflection of two things: one, tremendous dissatisfaction with George Bush; and two, dissatisfaction with an ideological candidate, Pombo, whose ideological positions were out of step with the moderate views of most of California.
Finally, I’m glad to see that we won’t have Cruz Bustamante to kick around anymore. California is now so overwhelmingly Democratic, that I thought anybody that party nominated would win statewide, unless of course he was running against a charming movie star. But thankfully, the voters saw Cruz for what he is: a corrupt and unguent slimeball.
I’m too disappointed by the SMUD vote. It passed with 60.9 percent in Davis, but failed in the rest of the county. I had heard prior to the election that it was doomed in Sacramento County, where it overwhelmingly lost. What confuses me, though, is what current SMUD ratepayers thought they had to lose by expanding into Yolo County?
Regarding Target in Davis: I thought it would be close, and it was. About half of the precincts aprroved it, and half rejected it. Only three preceincts (the NIMBY precinct in East Mace Ranch and two in the downtown, Old North area) overwhelmingly rejected it. In five others, it was overwhelmingly favored (led by the precincts with the highest percentage of students). In all of the others it was close.
As someone who favored Measure K, I would like to see the council now pass a resolution dedicating some of the $659,000 in new sales tax money that will be generated every year to improving downtown Davis and improving the public infrastructure which serves other locally owned retail businesses.
Statewide, I was most surprised by the victory of McNerney over Pombo. That district is, like so many others, gerrymandered to favor one party (Republicans in this case), that a change seemed unlikely. The McNerney win, I think, was really a reflection of two things: one, tremendous dissatisfaction with George Bush; and two, dissatisfaction with an ideological candidate, Pombo, whose ideological positions were out of step with the moderate views of most of California.
Finally, I’m glad to see that we won’t have Cruz Bustamante to kick around anymore. California is now so overwhelmingly Democratic, that I thought anybody that party nominated would win statewide, unless of course he was running against a charming movie star. But thankfully, the voters saw Cruz for what he is: a corrupt and unguent slimeball.
I’m too disappointed by the SMUD vote. It passed with 60.9 percent in Davis, but failed in the rest of the county. I had heard prior to the election that it was doomed in Sacramento County, where it overwhelmingly lost. What confuses me, though, is what current SMUD ratepayers thought they had to lose by expanding into Yolo County?
Regarding Target in Davis: I thought it would be close, and it was. About half of the precincts aprroved it, and half rejected it. Only three preceincts (the NIMBY precinct in East Mace Ranch and two in the downtown, Old North area) overwhelmingly rejected it. In five others, it was overwhelmingly favored (led by the precincts with the highest percentage of students). In all of the others it was close.
As someone who favored Measure K, I would like to see the council now pass a resolution dedicating some of the $659,000 in new sales tax money that will be generated every year to improving downtown Davis and improving the public infrastructure which serves other locally owned retail businesses.
Statewide, I was most surprised by the victory of McNerney over Pombo. That district is, like so many others, gerrymandered to favor one party (Republicans in this case), that a change seemed unlikely. The McNerney win, I think, was really a reflection of two things: one, tremendous dissatisfaction with George Bush; and two, dissatisfaction with an ideological candidate, Pombo, whose ideological positions were out of step with the moderate views of most of California.
Finally, I’m glad to see that we won’t have Cruz Bustamante to kick around anymore. California is now so overwhelmingly Democratic, that I thought anybody that party nominated would win statewide, unless of course he was running against a charming movie star. But thankfully, the voters saw Cruz for what he is: a corrupt and unguent slimeball.
That 11th district is interesting, it’s about a 5 point Republican advantage there and basically in San Joaquin County, McNerney kept the margin within 1200 votes and was able to win in the much more favorable Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties. That’s not an impossible district. Charlie Brown had a 16 point Republican advantage district to overcome, and he lost by just 3 points. That was really close.
That 11th district is interesting, it’s about a 5 point Republican advantage there and basically in San Joaquin County, McNerney kept the margin within 1200 votes and was able to win in the much more favorable Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties. That’s not an impossible district. Charlie Brown had a 16 point Republican advantage district to overcome, and he lost by just 3 points. That was really close.
That 11th district is interesting, it’s about a 5 point Republican advantage there and basically in San Joaquin County, McNerney kept the margin within 1200 votes and was able to win in the much more favorable Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties. That’s not an impossible district. Charlie Brown had a 16 point Republican advantage district to overcome, and he lost by just 3 points. That was really close.
That 11th district is interesting, it’s about a 5 point Republican advantage there and basically in San Joaquin County, McNerney kept the margin within 1200 votes and was able to win in the much more favorable Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties. That’s not an impossible district. Charlie Brown had a 16 point Republican advantage district to overcome, and he lost by just 3 points. That was really close.
Back to classic Rifkinisms…unguent slimeball? Does this have anything to do with him being…. a “greaser”?
Back to classic Rifkinisms…unguent slimeball? Does this have anything to do with him being…. a “greaser”?
Back to classic Rifkinisms…unguent slimeball? Does this have anything to do with him being…. a “greaser”?
Back to classic Rifkinisms…unguent slimeball? Does this have anything to do with him being…. a “greaser”?
Given the choice of two prices for the same unit of power (SMUD being 80% of the PG&E price) Yolo County (outside of Davis) picks the higher price. This looks like a backlash to the eminent domain dispute involving Conaway ranch.
Given the choice of two prices for the same unit of power (SMUD being 80% of the PG&E price) Yolo County (outside of Davis) picks the higher price. This looks like a backlash to the eminent domain dispute involving Conaway ranch.
Given the choice of two prices for the same unit of power (SMUD being 80% of the PG&E price) Yolo County (outside of Davis) picks the higher price. This looks like a backlash to the eminent domain dispute involving Conaway ranch.
Given the choice of two prices for the same unit of power (SMUD being 80% of the PG&E price) Yolo County (outside of Davis) picks the higher price. This looks like a backlash to the eminent domain dispute involving Conaway ranch.
“Back to classic Rifkinisms…unguent slimeball? Does this have anything to do with him being…. a “greaser”?
I have never in my life used a disparaging or vulgar term against someone’s racial or ethnic background. Not once. Though it may be a common term, I had to look up “greaser” to even know that it was a word to disparage people from Latin America. Your insinuation of my comments on Cruz Bustamante are completely off base.
My dislike of Bustamante has only to do with his record in public office. I think it’s a dishonorable record.
Bustamante was a leader in the efforts at campaign finance reform in California, a cause which I think worthwhile. (FWIW, I voted yes on Prop 89. I have opined in my Enterprise column that we need to have complete public financing of elections; and if necessary, we ought to amend the Constitution to do so.) Yet while Bustamante was proclaiming the need for campaign finance reform, he was egregiously violating the campaign finance laws on the books.
See this from the California Fair Political Practices Commission:
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=48&show=detail&prid=552
Secondly, I found Bustamante’s behavior during the recall of Gray Davis to be abhorrent. I was not a supporter of Governor Davis. But I thought the recall was completely uncalled for. Davis was elected and re-elected by a majority. He broke no laws, as far as I know. He did not deserve to be recalled.
As I understand things, there was widespread agreement that no prominent Democrats would run in that dual election. That by doing so, it would increase the chances of the governor being recalled. Every other prominent Democrat abided by the agreement. Yet Bustamante broke ranks with his party and ran anyway. That seemed to me to be a rather disloyal thing to do, and I think it did help to make the recall seem legitimate.
And finally, when running this year for Insurance Commissioner, Mr. Bustamante took huge campaign contributions from insurance companies. I personally don’t think we ought to elect an Insurance Commissioner — better to have the person appointed by the governor and ratified by the legislature. But if we are going to elect someone to this job, the candidate ought not be allowed to take money from the companies he is supposed to regulate. Nothing seems greasier to me than that. And that is just what Bustamante did.
We had a terrible experience with the corruption of Chuck Quackenbush in that job. Quackenbush was far worse than an unguent slimeball — he was a criminal. But if we had elected Bustamante this past week, it would have shown to me that the people of California failed to learn the lesson of Quackenbush.
“Back to classic Rifkinisms…unguent slimeball? Does this have anything to do with him being…. a “greaser”?
I have never in my life used a disparaging or vulgar term against someone’s racial or ethnic background. Not once. Though it may be a common term, I had to look up “greaser” to even know that it was a word to disparage people from Latin America. Your insinuation of my comments on Cruz Bustamante are completely off base.
My dislike of Bustamante has only to do with his record in public office. I think it’s a dishonorable record.
Bustamante was a leader in the efforts at campaign finance reform in California, a cause which I think worthwhile. (FWIW, I voted yes on Prop 89. I have opined in my Enterprise column that we need to have complete public financing of elections; and if necessary, we ought to amend the Constitution to do so.) Yet while Bustamante was proclaiming the need for campaign finance reform, he was egregiously violating the campaign finance laws on the books.
See this from the California Fair Political Practices Commission:
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=48&show=detail&prid=552
Secondly, I found Bustamante’s behavior during the recall of Gray Davis to be abhorrent. I was not a supporter of Governor Davis. But I thought the recall was completely uncalled for. Davis was elected and re-elected by a majority. He broke no laws, as far as I know. He did not deserve to be recalled.
As I understand things, there was widespread agreement that no prominent Democrats would run in that dual election. That by doing so, it would increase the chances of the governor being recalled. Every other prominent Democrat abided by the agreement. Yet Bustamante broke ranks with his party and ran anyway. That seemed to me to be a rather disloyal thing to do, and I think it did help to make the recall seem legitimate.
And finally, when running this year for Insurance Commissioner, Mr. Bustamante took huge campaign contributions from insurance companies. I personally don’t think we ought to elect an Insurance Commissioner — better to have the person appointed by the governor and ratified by the legislature. But if we are going to elect someone to this job, the candidate ought not be allowed to take money from the companies he is supposed to regulate. Nothing seems greasier to me than that. And that is just what Bustamante did.
We had a terrible experience with the corruption of Chuck Quackenbush in that job. Quackenbush was far worse than an unguent slimeball — he was a criminal. But if we had elected Bustamante this past week, it would have shown to me that the people of California failed to learn the lesson of Quackenbush.
“Back to classic Rifkinisms…unguent slimeball? Does this have anything to do with him being…. a “greaser”?
I have never in my life used a disparaging or vulgar term against someone’s racial or ethnic background. Not once. Though it may be a common term, I had to look up “greaser” to even know that it was a word to disparage people from Latin America. Your insinuation of my comments on Cruz Bustamante are completely off base.
My dislike of Bustamante has only to do with his record in public office. I think it’s a dishonorable record.
Bustamante was a leader in the efforts at campaign finance reform in California, a cause which I think worthwhile. (FWIW, I voted yes on Prop 89. I have opined in my Enterprise column that we need to have complete public financing of elections; and if necessary, we ought to amend the Constitution to do so.) Yet while Bustamante was proclaiming the need for campaign finance reform, he was egregiously violating the campaign finance laws on the books.
See this from the California Fair Political Practices Commission:
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=48&show=detail&prid=552
Secondly, I found Bustamante’s behavior during the recall of Gray Davis to be abhorrent. I was not a supporter of Governor Davis. But I thought the recall was completely uncalled for. Davis was elected and re-elected by a majority. He broke no laws, as far as I know. He did not deserve to be recalled.
As I understand things, there was widespread agreement that no prominent Democrats would run in that dual election. That by doing so, it would increase the chances of the governor being recalled. Every other prominent Democrat abided by the agreement. Yet Bustamante broke ranks with his party and ran anyway. That seemed to me to be a rather disloyal thing to do, and I think it did help to make the recall seem legitimate.
And finally, when running this year for Insurance Commissioner, Mr. Bustamante took huge campaign contributions from insurance companies. I personally don’t think we ought to elect an Insurance Commissioner — better to have the person appointed by the governor and ratified by the legislature. But if we are going to elect someone to this job, the candidate ought not be allowed to take money from the companies he is supposed to regulate. Nothing seems greasier to me than that. And that is just what Bustamante did.
We had a terrible experience with the corruption of Chuck Quackenbush in that job. Quackenbush was far worse than an unguent slimeball — he was a criminal. But if we had elected Bustamante this past week, it would have shown to me that the people of California failed to learn the lesson of Quackenbush.
“Back to classic Rifkinisms…unguent slimeball? Does this have anything to do with him being…. a “greaser”?
I have never in my life used a disparaging or vulgar term against someone’s racial or ethnic background. Not once. Though it may be a common term, I had to look up “greaser” to even know that it was a word to disparage people from Latin America. Your insinuation of my comments on Cruz Bustamante are completely off base.
My dislike of Bustamante has only to do with his record in public office. I think it’s a dishonorable record.
Bustamante was a leader in the efforts at campaign finance reform in California, a cause which I think worthwhile. (FWIW, I voted yes on Prop 89. I have opined in my Enterprise column that we need to have complete public financing of elections; and if necessary, we ought to amend the Constitution to do so.) Yet while Bustamante was proclaiming the need for campaign finance reform, he was egregiously violating the campaign finance laws on the books.
See this from the California Fair Political Practices Commission:
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=48&show=detail&prid=552
Secondly, I found Bustamante’s behavior during the recall of Gray Davis to be abhorrent. I was not a supporter of Governor Davis. But I thought the recall was completely uncalled for. Davis was elected and re-elected by a majority. He broke no laws, as far as I know. He did not deserve to be recalled.
As I understand things, there was widespread agreement that no prominent Democrats would run in that dual election. That by doing so, it would increase the chances of the governor being recalled. Every other prominent Democrat abided by the agreement. Yet Bustamante broke ranks with his party and ran anyway. That seemed to me to be a rather disloyal thing to do, and I think it did help to make the recall seem legitimate.
And finally, when running this year for Insurance Commissioner, Mr. Bustamante took huge campaign contributions from insurance companies. I personally don’t think we ought to elect an Insurance Commissioner — better to have the person appointed by the governor and ratified by the legislature. But if we are going to elect someone to this job, the candidate ought not be allowed to take money from the companies he is supposed to regulate. Nothing seems greasier to me than that. And that is just what Bustamante did.
We had a terrible experience with the corruption of Chuck Quackenbush in that job. Quackenbush was far worse than an unguent slimeball — he was a criminal. But if we had elected Bustamante this past week, it would have shown to me that the people of California failed to learn the lesson of Quackenbush.