| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| "Look out Mexico, we’re invading at dawn" |
| 2003-10-08 |
| Even before the first ballot was cast on election day, it was clear that Schwarzenegger was going to win the election. And win he did -- by a landslide. There is a euphoria in the air throughout the Great State of California. If he does well in the Governor's office, who knows, maybe Schwarzenegger will become President of the United States. One report during the day said that some people were actually more inclined to vote for Schwarzenegger because of the groping charges. Jimmy Kimmel's remark reflects the atmosphere well: "Look out Mexico, we're invading at dawn". Yes, and let's not forget about Texas. |
| Posted by:Alex |
| #19 Got my copy of the Constitution off the net,And it is within 2ft of my hand as we speak. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2003-10-9 10:23:43 AM |
| #18 Zhang: here's Article V of our Constitution: Hell, just email the Rutherford Institute. They will happily mail you a "Pocket Contitution" that contains the entire unabridged US Constitution in a booklet about the size of your hand. www.rutherford.org. I don't care for their politics, but a free copy of the Constitution is never a bad thing. I keep mine next to my computer. Ed. |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2003-10-8 10:17:41 PM |
| #17 None's in denial here...that's why we threw the bastid out. Fact is...noone really knows how bad it is or going to get. Davis' budget was smoke and mirrors. Also, much of it unconstitutional. We've already had 2 billion of bonds sales (read borrowing) nulled by the courts. Another 10 bil is under review....and even that might not be the end of it. Nope....no denial here. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-10-8 7:23:51 PM |
| #16 Hiryu, if those "annoying little brown people" aren't in the country LEGALLY, then they SHOULD go away--or be escorted away by force. It is farsical to talk of "national security" while simultaneously ignoring the threat posed by an open border. Further, what social services do exist belong first and foremost to the CITIZENS of this country. |
| Posted by: Flaming Sword 2003-10-8 3:33:18 PM |
| #15 I'm also talking about Republicans who think they are disconnected from every part of society that just doesn't apply to them, who think that if social services get cut back those annoying little brown people will go away, and that means tax increases. Republicans == racists? You sound just like a Democrat operative. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-10-8 2:26:18 PM |
| #14 The simple message is: you cannot count on voters being passive all the time. A power fiasco, a financial situation that spiraled out of control in a short period, then a 300% tax increase. Bend over the public enough, and they'll get mad, to say the least. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-10-8 2:23:04 PM |
| #13 Why invade Mexico when California is turning into Mexico? And I'm not talking about the Hispanicization of the state. I'm talking about Democrats who can't see the overhang of entitlements will have to be trimmed back in an ORDERLY fashion. I'm also talking about Republicans who think they are disconnected from every part of society that just doesn't apply to them, who think that if social services get cut back those annoying little brown people will go away, and that means tax increases. What has to be done in California to right the ship of state is so radical that the safe bet is to expect bankruptcy. The politicians will get the blame, as is fair, but the general population has to be in denial out there too. Arnie has done nothing to gird people for the worst. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-10-8 12:31:59 PM |
| #12 Instapundit has a link to this great map showing which counties Arnie carried and which Cruz carried (Bay Area only). Nicely done... |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-10-8 12:29:34 PM |
| #11 It takes 3/4 of the legislatures of the states to ratify a constitutional ammendment. 2/3 of a quorom in both houses of Congress is required to propose the ammendment. This is coverd in Article Five of the Constitution. Read it, Learn it, Know it, Live it!!! |
| Posted by: spiffo 2003-10-8 11:44:10 AM |
#10 Zhang: here's Article V of our Constitution:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. So whether Congress or a constitutional convention proposes an amendment, it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-10-8 11:22:03 AM |
| #9 Chuck - you got the message correct, but it appears that it won't be heard by the professional politicians - Terry McAuliffe was trying to spin it as a message to GWB that the California voters are angry at the President(?!) and the Republicans - go figure |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-10-8 11:13:22 AM |
| #8 What does it all mean? The pundits will have a field day, I'm certain. A simple conclusion: politicians at the state and the Federal level need to be aware that there is a spirit of revolt in the electorate. The voters of Alabama overwhelmingly rejected an increase in their taxes to cover a deficit. The recall in California succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its proponents. The simple message is: you cannot count on voters being passive all the time. There are thirty or so states with budget problems. The message to their governors and legeslatures is that they cannot rely on their voters just accepting any old tax increase, or flim flam financial operation to close a budget gap. Sure, many will get away with it, but these two examples suggest a mood in the country that may unpleasantly surprise some elected officials. It also suggests that the 2004 Federal election will not be a one issue election. Bush cannot run as just the "security" President. The deficit and the economy will be in play. This is not a third party revolt, but a mainstream, average American, ordinary Republican or Democrat revolt. Howard Dean does not symbolize this revolt any more than Tom McClintock did in California. So, powers that be entrenched in state capitals, think about it. Perhaps your jobs aren't quite so guaranteed after all. And, all you porkers in Congress, draw a correct conclusion, as well. Some elections you can't buy with special interests. Sometimes the people just want to stop being gouged by their elected governement, and if it means replacing that government, so be it! |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2003-10-8 10:19:23 AM |
| #7 ZF--I agree. I'll wait to see how he does, and I wish him well, but I'm not jumping on the Arnie-for-Prez bandwagon quite yet. I just wanted to toss in a reminder that the rules can be rewritten. Women once couldn't vote. Slaves were held and counted as 3/5 of a white person. Presidents could serve more than two terms. Alcohol was banned nationwide. Yadayadayada. I don't hold being Austrian against Arnie, nor being married to a Kennedy. I'll wait to see what he actually does now that he has the reins. Finally, I'm just ecstatic to see Barbra Streisand's proboscus get tweaked--she was spouting off her support for "Grey" [sic] on her blog, and decrying "this attempted hijacking of the democratic process" -- I guess rule of law means nothing to her unless she likes the outcome. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-10-8 10:19:22 AM |
| #6 I have heard many pundits speculate that the recall will hurt Bush in the election because Bush needs California to be an active disaster that he can blame on Democratic leadership. I disagree. California is a large enough economy to screw up the national recovery. |
| Posted by: Superhose 2003-10-8 10:16:37 AM |
| #5 I expect him to be a Bloomberg clone - a complete RINO What else can we expect in Cal. NYC and Mass. ? My hope is that there election might open the door for real conservatives to make some gains, |
| Posted by: domingo 2003-10-8 10:11:11 AM |
| #4 What's it take--2/3 of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment? Actually, I think it's only 3/5 of the states. Do I think Arnold should be prez? Nope. Heck - he shouldn't even be governor - Tom McClintock definitely got the short end of the stick on this recall vote. Note that Arnold comes from Austria, home of the socialist welfare state, and is married to a member of the Kennedy clan. I expect him to be a Bloomberg clone - a complete RINO. I just hope I'm wrong. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-10-8 9:38:32 AM |
| #3 What's it take--2/3 of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment? |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-10-8 8:39:03 AM |
| #2 Schwarznegger can't be president because he was not born here. |
| Posted by: Sharon in NYC 2003-10-8 8:36:59 AM |
| #1 Schwarzenegger can't run for President, you have to be born in America to be qualified. I believe, and I may be wrong, that even if your parents are both american and you happen to be born outside the U.S., you can't run. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-10-8 8:26:34 AM |