I like it — and Mickey — a lot. I’m a Republican, but my sense is that he is the sort of Democrat that moderate and conservative Democrats, as well as Democratic-leaning independents (and even some liberal Democrats), should want to support. Mickey’s campaign site is here; go there if you want to contribute.
Steve says:
It’s a vanity campaign. There is nothing to support, unless people just want to express animus towards Barbara Boxer.
June 2, 2010, 2:23 pmDw says:
It certainly has more bang for the buck than Carly Fiorina’s “Blimp” ad.
June 2, 2010, 2:32 pmCalAttnyKen says:
I gave him $50. I am not a Dem or Rep but he makes more sense than the rest of the boobs running. I hope he considers an independent run after he losses the primary.
June 2, 2010, 2:34 pmA Non-E Mous says:
I am curious: Do you like him for a Democrat or do you like him over other conservatives? (And when I say “like,” I mean “could support his approach to the issues” as opposed to “would love to have a beer with.”) From his website, his issues seem moderately liberal. Fiscally, he leaves a lot to be desired by conservatives and libertarians. (While socially, his policies seem to be in line with some libertarians.)
June 2, 2010, 2:34 pmjimM47 says:
Is that Rob Long’s voice at the end?
June 2, 2010, 2:39 pmAnthony says:
Speaking as another Californian, my first reaction was “‘Mickey Who?” The only really visible race has been Whitman-Poisner (currently being won by Jerry Brown, who intimidated all of his competitors into quitting before he even formally declared his candidacy).
Karly ‘HP fired me for incompetence’ Fiorina is pretty underwhelming, though.
June 2, 2010, 2:42 pmshawn-non-anonymous says:
If he can say those things because he’s not a politician, does that mean he’s telling us he’ll have to change his behavior once elected to office as a politician?
June 2, 2010, 2:44 pmStephen Lathrop says:
I just want to express animus towards Barbara Boxer.
June 2, 2010, 2:53 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Agreed.
I could support Mickey if he were running for Governor instead of Senator; neither Whitman nor Poisner thrill me very much, and he would be far better than Governor Moonbeam Redux.
Right now Chuck DeVore has my Senate vote, not that he’ll win the primary.
June 2, 2010, 3:14 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Drive-by swipes at unions (but not management) and teachers, dismissal of comprehensive immigration reform, objection to Democrats’ (but not Republicans’) relationship with big business, a sound bite against the stimulus program.
Not a truth-telling syllable, however, about science and evolution, gay-bashing, the decision to invade Iraq, health care, the botched occupation of Iraq, textbooks, morning-after pills, the drift in Afghanistan or the parties’ record on deficits and surpluses.
That’s a message for a Democratic primary? It had everything except a clip of a grinning George W. Bush giving a thumbs-up in that flight suit.
Kaus must be running for a talk show gig. On Fox.
June 2, 2010, 3:16 pmruuffles says:
It’s rather telling that your posts are wrapped in a holier-than-thou tone but rather than use the usual “I dislike both major parties but vote Republican because I dislike them less” excuse, you just come out with the usual rapid partisanship.
But still not Republicans. Interesting.
June 2, 2010, 3:18 pmruuffles says:
See Brown, Scott.
June 2, 2010, 3:20 pmChris says:
So why should we vote for someone to be a politician who claims that they are not a politician? Either he is lying now — he really is a politician — or he will be incompetent if elected.
Also, based on this advertisement, he doesn’t really seem to be a Democrat. So why is he running as a Democrat? I guess it’s not surprising that he’s favored by posters/readers of a conservative/libertarian blog such as this one. I am sure he is their type of “Democrat”, that is, he’s not a Democrat. But that doesn’t really count as a good argument to make to most of the people who vote in Democratic primaries in California, who are Democrats and want to vote for a Democrat (see Barbara Boxer).
June 2, 2010, 3:24 pmHouston Lawyer says:
I occasionally read Kaus because he is insightful. I don’t share his politics, but at least he speaks plainly. But clearly he can’t be a Democrat, because he doesn’t blame every ill in this country on George Bush.
June 2, 2010, 3:35 pmmary jane says:
Gosh, lighten up, people. He’s darling.
I resort to voting Republican, myself, but Kaus shows integrity and originality and, big bonus, seems to get the grotesquerie of our hide-bound institutions, corrupted ways and means.
The Dems who support universal health care, carbon taxes, etc. should vote him in and the entitled Boxer out, especially because he taped this political spot without placing his finger in an electrical socket for all to see.
June 2, 2010, 3:36 pmuh_clem says:
Arthur Kirkland: Kaus must be running for a talk show gig. On Fox.
Bingo.
June 2, 2010, 4:20 pmShelbyC says:
Er, is this a joke? The post is saying nice things about a Democrat. And if there’s one person around here that’s a rabid partisan…
June 2, 2010, 4:22 pmTed says:
“I’m a Republican, but my sense is that he is the sort of Democrat….”
Is he? I am actually asking. If he’s a Democrat, why does he raise and appear to support Republican-only talking points? Does he raise republican-only talking points in order to separate himself from the field? Perhaps, to “shock” Democrats into thinking he’s a straight-talker, not afraid to tell them how it is?
But I still don’t understand why someone would want a straight-talker who’s straight-talk is in direct opposition to their own ideals and issues. I think I might prefer a liar who actually supports my positions on issues but says he doesn’t, rather than someone who opposes my issues and says so. In fact, generally, isn’t the later actually the latter called an opposing party, in this case a Republican? Very weird ad, very California.
Oh, and just to be sure I understand, this is a primary election ad, yes? So it’s not like he’s trying to attract the moderate independents… He is, at least directly and at present, speaking only at Democrats, right?
June 2, 2010, 4:22 pmThorley Winston says:
That’s my assessment as well – his positions are either pretty much the same (supports Obamacare, opposes offshore drilling, wants more federal control of the economy) or only marginally different (carbon tax versus cap and tax) from Boxer’s.
June 2, 2010, 4:25 pmJoseph Slater says:
What Arthur Kirkland said.
June 2, 2010, 4:25 pmArkady says:
I think the ad needs a demon goat.
June 2, 2010, 4:26 pmrarango says:
I do enjoy reading his blog, and I think his ad is nicely done–Paul Wellstone did the same kind of ad 20 years ago.
My take on Kaus, based on his blogging, is that he would certainly not be a cookier cutter democrat–I wish him luck in the primary, but am not optimistic. As a non-californian, nothing I can do about it anyway.
June 2, 2010, 4:29 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
The man advocates universal health care, which goes beyond a public option and beyond anything Congressional democrats passed. He also supports progressive taxation in order to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor.
I didn’t realize you’re not a real democrat because you diverge on 2 issues: (1) thinking Unions are crushing the state fisc and (2) border security should be legislated (like all democrats believe) and enforced (which I think most democrats are lukewarm about).
June 2, 2010, 4:33 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
FWIW (not much, I’m sure), I had to request an absentee ballot for the first time in my life because we’re in mid-move here; and I (registered independent) asked for a Democratic ballot entirely because I wanted to vote for Mickey Kaus. (I wanted to vote for Tom Campbell too, but you can’t have everything.)
I’ve admired the man ever since The End of Equality was published. He’s basically in my own political sweet spot: a bit to the left of the US public as a whole, but waaaaay right of Barbara Boxer. I grew up assuming I was a Democrat, but in CA (and the Bay Area, where I live, especially) there are damn few Democrats I actually want to vote for.
June 2, 2010, 4:56 pmCornellian says:
Fiorina is a great candidate if you’re looking for someone who can take a great company like Hewlett Packard and run it into the ground.
Only Campbell can beat Boxer but California Republican primary voters prefer purity to winning.
June 2, 2010, 5:05 pmnoahp says:
Used to watch Mickey and Robert Wright “duke” it out in the early days of BloggingheadsTV when it was mostly just them. Wright was always accusing him of undermining the Democrat narrative (back then the main focus was undermining the war in Iraq). As history has proven Kaus was correct.
Other than being a smart possibly persuadable liberal and his positions on public unions and border enforcement, there is little to recommend here. As someone opined upthread he really ought to be running for guv’.
June 2, 2010, 5:06 pmPerseus says:
That’s Senator Barbara Boxer, and she deserves all the animus that’s directed against her (which I will formally express on election day).
June 2, 2010, 5:21 pmRichard Ragsdale says:
Ted is right to ask whether Kaus is a Democrat. I would say not. He spends most of his time dumping on Democrats and recycling Republican talking points. He’s basically Glenn Reynolds calling himself a democrat.
June 2, 2010, 5:21 pmRichard Ragsdale says:
Ted is right to ask whether Kaus is a Democrat. I would say not. He spends most of his time dumping on Democrats and recycling Republican talking points. He’s basically Glenn Reynolds calling himself a democrat.
June 2, 2010, 5:21 pmjstar says:
re Ragsdale, lots of us would be happy to vote for a Glenn Reynolds or a Mickey Kaus. A little more liberal than me here, a little more conservative than me there, but basically an honest thinker and not a party-man.
June 2, 2010, 5:39 pmgab says:
Something odd about the video right after he says, “Hi mom.” Look at it closely – she looks completely somewhere else, like it’s been faked. And, that house doesn’t look like it’s in Beverly Hills…
June 2, 2010, 5:55 pmDavid Welker says:
I think this commercial is not a good one.
First of all, I don’t know if the picture of Beverly Hills High School at the beginning makes him seem like a “normal guy.” It makes him seem very privileged. And if he is going to show pictures of all of his high school, why not pictures of Harvard College and Harvard Law School? Let the voters know that he was not only very privileged in where he attended high school, but that this privilege continued regarding where he attended college and law school. His line about distancing himself from “ordinary politicians” doesn’t mean he is an “ordinary guy.” But I think the “ordinary guy” feel of his ad is undermined by the picture of Beverly Hills High School in the background.
Second of all, it is fine that he is an independent thinker and goes against certain traditionally Democratic constituencies. But there was not one thing in his ad that sets him apart from Republicans. Except perhaps a failure to call for tax cuts as the solution to all problems.
His ad makes him unappealing to me. Without researching more about him, based on his ad, I would vote against him in a primary. Independent thinking from other Democrats. Good. Putting out an ad that only affirmatively supports Republican positions. Bad.
He needs to do more balanced ads. Why should a Democrat who isn’t inclined to vote Republican support him? Based on his ad, I can see why a Republican would vote for him. But a Democrat? Not so much.
June 2, 2010, 5:58 pmConstantin says:
This lunacy pretty much sums up Kaus’s reasons for running. He can’t be a Democrat because he’s not a lawn jockey for unions and race hustlers.
Aren’t you guys the “big-tent” party?
June 2, 2010, 6:04 pmwolfefan says:
Kaus confounds those who want to assign categories. He’s kind of a neo-liberal in the Charles Peters/Washington Monthly tradition. Too many folks want to say liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, and end the discussion. Kaus is a liberal who is not afraid to criticize liberals and take on liberal shibboleths. Not a lock-step guy. I’ve enjoyed his writing since he was with The New Republic. He is also able and willing to criticize those he agrees with. Kaus was a strong supporter of a public option in health care reform, for example, but was critical of the way the administration went about selling the program. Definitely not a Fox commentator IMO. I think a common theme of the Washington Monthly-style writers is that whatever government is going to do, it should do competently and well. I would be happy to have him as a Senator; I’m not so sure about Governor, as I don’t have a sense of his administrative gifts. I think idea persons belong in the Senate.
June 2, 2010, 6:08 pmTatil says:
The merger with Compaq probably saved both of them. Did the successive HP management stop any of her plans? She may have alienated the other executives, so you may take a sign of a poor CEO, but at least her strategy seems to have paid off. Senators do not run any departments, so her management style may not be an impediment anyways. Of course, this is coming from a person who has no idea what she promises to do if she gets elected.
June 2, 2010, 6:09 pmnicehonesty says:
Boxer’s the better candidate if you’re looking for someone who can take a great country like the United States and run it into the ground.
June 2, 2010, 6:17 pmMark Horning says:
This is the primary and he’s running in the Democratic primary, so Republicans can’t support him.
Moderarate and fiscal Republicans are supporting Tom Campbell.
June 2, 2010, 6:18 pmTatil says:
I doubt CA Republicans would vote for a guy who supports abortion during the first trimester, supports public option and possibly a “let everybody into Medicare” system, is against off-shore oil drilling and proposes a carbon tax (even if it comes with reduced taxes elsewhere.)
June 2, 2010, 6:21 pmCobraCommander says:
He’s trying to challenge the idea of what a Democrat is- that you can be the party of government but want it to run right & be fiscally responsible, that you can be pro-union but can admit the damage they’ve done, etc.
June 2, 2010, 6:39 pmgrog says:
If he’s a Democrat, why does he raise and appear to support Republican-only talking points?
For the reasons Eugene made clear – he’s a Democrat that Republicans like.
To be fair, he does hold some views that are widely shared with other Democrats. But on a number of issues they consider important, he’s a – does this work? DINO.
But as others have noted, it is a vanity campaign. I just wish Jello Biafra would run again. (Was that Senate?)
Gawker has had the best coverage of his campaign, right down to the debate he held with a cardboard box.
June 2, 2010, 6:45 pmDilan Esper says:
I have to bring this up, because it’s one of my favorite Eugene Volokh posts:
http://volokh.com/posts/1225324497.shtml
I guess Kaus falls within the exception for primaries, though I really took that to mean voting within one’s own primary.
June 2, 2010, 6:51 pmjstar says:
I think Kaus doesn’t tout his Democratic bonefides because what’s the point? If you’re interested in a standard issue incumbant Democrat, well, you’re already going to vote for Boxer anyway. Kaus isn’t going to get attention by being even more Democrat-y than the incumbant.
June 2, 2010, 7:17 pmDesiderius says:
“If he’s a Democrat, why does he raise and appear to support Republican-only talking points?”
Because they’re right?
All the Colbertian deconstruction of the R’s is spot on, and yet they’re leading by an appreciable margin in most polls. Shouldn’t that tell you something?
I’d vote for Kaus if I lived in Cali over any candidate, R or D.
June 2, 2010, 7:29 pmSecond history says:
Heard a Mickey Kaus (rhymes with “mouse”) radio ad yesterday, talking about the public employee pension problem in Sacramento. A US Senator has what responsibility for that?
June 2, 2010, 7:39 pmCase Law says:
To be fair, he does hold some views that are widely shared with other Democrats. But on a number of issues they consider important, he’s a — does this work? DINO.
DINOs are dead creatures. At least RINOs are alive.
June 2, 2010, 7:40 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
David Welker,
Why should a Democrat who isn’t inclined to vote Republican support him? Based on his ad, I can see why a Republican would vote for him. But a Democrat? Not so much.
I think you’re missing the point, which is that a lot of people who would naturally identify as “liberals” in most of the country find the CA Democratic Party well to their own left. Kaus is to the left of the American electorate as a whole (though not by all that much); he’s way to the right of the CA Dems. There’s a reason this blue state has had mostly Republican governors for decades, and it’s that the CA Democratic Party is some ways to the left of most of the state’s instinctive Democrats.
June 2, 2010, 7:43 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Second history,
Heard a Mickey Kaus (rhymes with “mouse”) radio ad yesterday, talking about the public employee pension problem in Sacramento. A US Senator has what responsibility for that?
A US Senator has what responsibility for abortion law? And yet, for some strange reason, every candidate must have a position.
CA, absent a constitutional convention, is about to become our first official “failed state” since the Civil War. You think it reflects badly on a Senatorial candidate that he mentions the problem? I think it reflects much more badly on Boxer that she doesn’t.
June 2, 2010, 7:50 pmArthur Kirkland says:
He doesn’t seem a strong fit for the “and now — because we’re fair and — to offer the Democrat opinion — we report, you decide — from a silly far-left, anti-American socialist, here’s our Mickey Kaus . . .” spot in the Fox lineup?
June 2, 2010, 7:54 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Arthur Kirkland,
He doesn’t seem a strong fit for the “and now — because we’re fair and — to offer the Democrat opinion — we report, you decide — from a silly far-left, anti-American socialist, here’s our Mickey Kaus . . .” spot in the Fox lineup?
Really not one of your better efforts, Arthur.
June 2, 2010, 7:58 pmleo marvin says:
What Joseph Slater said.
Sounds like Kaus is hankerin’ to fight the winner of the Whitman/Poisner “I hate liberals more than s/he does” contest. I expect the next ad to be:
June 2, 2010, 8:20 pmDavid Welker says:
I am not criticizing Kaus himself. I am criticizing his ad.
If the guy is a Democrat, he probably should indicate some areas he agrees with most Democrats and not just areas he disagrees with Democrats but instead agrees with Republicans. That is my view.
As I said, based on the ad alone, I would be disinclined to vote for him in a Democratic primary.
Of course, if, as some people have mentioned, Kaus isn’t really trying to run a serious campaign, then the ad is fine.
June 2, 2010, 8:22 pmDavid Welker says:
Based on the ad, you wouldn’t know that. I was criticizing the ad and not Kaus. =)
June 2, 2010, 8:28 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
David Welker,
If the guy is a Democrat, he probably should indicate some areas he agrees with most Democrats and not just areas he disagrees with Democrats but instead agrees with Republicans. That is my view.
[...]
Of course, if, as some people have mentioned, Kaus isn’t really trying to run a serious campaign, then the ad is fine.
Oh, he’s running a “serious campaign”; he just hasn’t a hope of winning the primary. Which (IMO) sucks; but I can’t tell you how cool it is to see a sensible moderate running for statewide office as a Democrat.
(OK, Feinstein is a sensible moderate, and a Democrat, and holds a statewide office. But she’s held it since 1992; she’s no more likely to lose her seat than Boxer is. What I meant is that I can now vote for a Democrat I really do like who’s running against a Democrat I really don’t.)
June 2, 2010, 8:37 pmleo marvin says:
Gray Davis was a sensible, moderate Democrat, and the Republicans ran him out of town on a rail for what amounts to the same sin Obama just committed, i.e., being too credulous of the energy companies.
June 2, 2010, 9:04 pmKevin says:
The politician Mickey Kaus most reminds me of is the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Smart, even perhaps intellectual, and willing to stray from from party orthodoxy on occasion, but still a committed liberal.
June 2, 2010, 9:19 pmKevin says:
I think there is a difference between being a centrist (or center-left) hack (such as Davis) and a centrist (or center-left) policy wonk. The guy who is a moderate because he wants to be in the middle (and get campaign cash and endorsements from everyone) is not the same as the guy who is a centrist because tries to find new and innovative (Third Way even) solutions to public policy problems and his thinking leads to some proposals different from the usual liberal-conservative positions.
June 2, 2010, 9:26 pmDesiderius says:
The problem is that the policies that Kaus rightly criticizes are, in practice, illiberal.
He’s the liberal in the race, not the frozen in amber Boxer.
June 2, 2010, 9:27 pmSteve says:
Oh, he’s running a “serious campaign”; he just hasn’t a hope of winning the primary.
Someone who is running a serious campaign does not try to get people to sign his nominating petition by saying “I’m not going to win, don’t worry about it.”
If you mean that he seriously believes the Democratic Party should change its position on certain issues, then yes, that’s true. But it’s not a serious campaign.
June 2, 2010, 10:06 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
leo marvin,
Gray Davis was a sensible, moderate Democrat, and the Republicans ran him out of town on a rail for what amounts to the same sin Obama just committed, i.e., being too credulous of the energy companies.
It wasn’t “the Republicans” who “ran him out of town on a rail.” This is a majority-Democratic state. The word you’re groping for here is “voters.”
I think Davis got a raw deal, myself. Any other likely alternative candidate would have done exactly what he did. I bet the Gubernator would’ve, for that matter.
June 2, 2010, 10:08 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Steve,
If you mean that he seriously believes the Democratic Party should change its position on certain issues, then yes, that’s true. But it’s not a serious campaign.
It’s not a competitive campaign. Of course. I mean, it sucks that it isn’t, but no one seriously thinks otherwise.
But in the sense that it is designed to make CA Democrats think about their positions, it’s the only “serious” CA Senate campaign I’ve seen since I moved out here in 1984.
June 2, 2010, 10:23 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Yeah, it got sliced up by my (lack of mastery of my) new mobile telephone. Sorry.
June 2, 2010, 10:37 pmjaltcoh says:
Not a truth-telling syllable, however, about science and evolution, gay-bashing, the decision to invade Iraq, health care, the botched occupation of Iraq, textbooks, morning-after pills, the drift in Afghanistan or the parties’ record on deficits and surpluses.
There’s a limit to how many issues he can talk about in an ad. He clearly doesn’t have a big budget to run lots of long ads. His website explains his position on health care, gay rights, and other issues. He has been clearly and consistently against the decision to invade Iraq from the beginning.
June 2, 2010, 10:38 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Arthur Kirkland,
Yeah, it got sliced up by my (lack of mastery of my) new mobile telephone. Sorry.
That must be it.
Might you tell us which technology-sabotaged bit you wanted to retract?
June 2, 2010, 10:43 pmgeokstr says:
Gosh, Chris, every time I bring up the exact same argument from the conservative side about Brooks, Frum, Parker, McCain, Graham, even Bush, et al, not being conservatives, I hear screams of “No True Scotsman”. What happened to the so-called supposed “big tent” of the Democrats?
A generation ago, Kaus would be called a “Jackson Democrat”, fiscally responsible, pro-American (as opposed to “Blame America First”), for a strong defense, and pretty much liberal on everything else. But the D’s have tacked hard left since then, and their “big tent” is more like a carny side show now, with everyone invited who looks different but only if they think alike.
For diversity of opinions and ideas, not so much.
June 2, 2010, 10:44 pmMike P Wagner says:
I suspect he’s exploring the center of American politics. I think that’s where he (and a lot of other Democrats) want to take the Democratic party.
When the Democrats move right, they are probably moving to the center of American politics, and when the Republicans move right, they are moving away from the center.
The reality is the Democratic health care “reforms” are less “socialist” that Medicare – and there is support for Medicare is 100% dead center in American politics. It did not escape me that the most effective charges against the Health Care reform bill were those that claimed it would threaten Medicare.
It’s funny to hear a Republican shill on Fox trying to maintain that he is fighting a last ditch stand agains the red menace – while simultaneously pledging 100% support for Social Security and Medicare.
I read/listen to some (big “L” and little “l”) libertarians because they have the intellectual integrity to reject Medicare and Social Security when criticizing “big government”. But while I respect the integrity of those libertarians, I don’t think they are very close to center of American politics – and that’s where the votes are.
The Democrats re-took Congress (and will very likely maintain control of both houses again this election cycle) by moving towards the center – an example would be Heath Shuler from my state.
I would be very interested in hearing serious talk about how to pay for the medical care that Medicare, COBRA, and the new Health Care Reforms. I am also willing to pay for higher taxes to pay for that medical care.
I have a hard time supporting a party of “fiscal responsibility” whose main platform is refusing to pay for services they won’t cut.
So, overall, I am willing to listen to this guy – I can’t tell if he serious or not.
June 2, 2010, 11:13 pmMike Bryant says:
Paul Wellstone did this ad years ago.
June 2, 2010, 11:14 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
geokstr,
A generation ago, Kaus would be called a “Jackson Democrat”, fiscally responsible, pro-American (as opposed to “Blame America First”), for a strong defense, and pretty much liberal on everything else.
[That'd be Henry "Scoop" Jackson, not Andrew, and definitely not Jesse.]
But the D’s have tacked hard left since then, and their “big tent” is more like a carny side show now, with everyone invited who looks different but only if they think alike.
You know, geokstr, that isn’t really fair. I happen to think that the Republican “tent” is a lot bigger than the Democratic one, but Kaus would be a perfectly plausible Democratic candidate in another state. For that matter, he’d be a plausible Democratic Senate candidate in CA. (Not all CA Democrats are in the Pelosi/Boxer mold, though if you live in the Bay Area you might be forgiven for thinking so.)
What he is not is a plausible primary challenger to Boxer. Alas.
But I’m voting for him anyway, because someone has to make Californians think about the mess we’re in, and he seems to be about the only one trying.
June 2, 2010, 11:47 pmMark Field says:
The Republicans were certainly leading the lynch mob and (without looking it up) I have no doubt they provided a plurality, if not a majority, of the votes against Davis.
June 2, 2010, 11:57 pmPerseus says:
In the event that the state of California begs for a federal bailout (or even yet more money to feed the spending beast), Congress will have a role in setting the conditions.
June 3, 2010, 12:39 amRicardo says:
Quick question. How many Democrats voted for the war in Iraq? How many Democrats voted against the most recent health care bill?
June 3, 2010, 1:12 amleo marvin says:
Michelle,
Are you under the impression that it wasn’t Republicans, Darrell Issa in particular, who engineered the recall petition and campaign against Davis? Thanks to his obliviousness to the requirement that politicians keep selling themselves to the voters after they’re elected, Davis, who has less personality and political savvy than my desk lamp, was an easy scapegoat for Sacramento gridlock. The Republicans correctly calculated that a lot of people who preferred him to the alternatives didn’t prefer him enough to bother voting, while just about everyone they could convince to blame Davis for our financial woes could be counted on to show up at the polls. Obviously he lost the election, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a well-crafted Republican project to drive him from office, any more than it was with Bill Clinton. (Yes, as the different results confirm, Clinton has more personality and political savvy than my desk lamp.)
June 3, 2010, 1:18 amSkyler says:
I’d take him more seriously as a candidate if he got a haircut and dressed a little better in the video.
June 3, 2010, 2:00 amthe Colonel (ret) says:
Fox…Does that mean he will actually have a viewership?
June 3, 2010, 8:19 amDesiderius says:
Mike P Wagner,
“So, overall, I am willing to listen to this guy — I can’t tell if he serious or not.”
He’s not, but he should be.
June 3, 2010, 11:36 amDesiderius says:
Kevin,
“I think there is a difference between being a centrist (or center-left) hack (such as Davis) and a centrist (or center-left) policy wonk. The guy who is a moderate because he wants to be in the middle (and get campaign cash and endorsements from everyone) is not the same as the guy who is a centrist because tries to find new and innovative (Third Way even) solutions to public policy problems and his thinking leads to some proposals different from the usual liberal-conservative positions.”
Any chance of your running next go round?
LM and MarkField, please, please, please note the above distinction.
As for Enron being Davis’s downfall, the problem with Big Business is the Big, not the Business. Big Government and Big Labor have shown themselves fully capable of giving us voters the Business too. We don’t hate business, or government or labor for that matter, but we do fear Big, and for good reason. Isn’t four decades of Shrumminess enough?
June 3, 2010, 11:42 amRandy says:
Skylar: “I’d take him more seriously as a candidate if he got a haircut and dressed a little better in the video.”
But then he wouldn’t be a ‘man of the people.’
Glad to see he finally came around on same-sex marriage. He was against it for a long time, arguing that SSM in europe caused marriage rates to decline. When people pointed out to him that his data was inaccurate (and rather obviously so), he dug in his heels, and then eventually realized that you can’t argue with facts.
June 3, 2010, 12:00 pmThorley Winston says:
That’s a good point although California isn’t the only State that’s facing unsustainable public employee compensation, benefits and pension obligations, they’ve just dug themselves deeper in that hole than most. I wonder when we’ll see Congressional candidates being asked or having to debate the issue of whether they support changing the federal bankruptcy code to enable States to either discharge or renegotiate these obligations (someone who practices bankruptcy law can probably correct my terminology) the way that private companies who enter bankruptcy are able to do.
June 3, 2010, 12:10 pmMark Field says:
I wasn’t defending Davis generally, just noting that the recall was a travesty and that it was, contra MDK’s comment, led by Republicans.
June 3, 2010, 1:00 pmleo marvin says:
Ditto. When I barely dragged myself out to vote for Davis, it was only because the recall was so outrageous.
June 3, 2010, 2:24 pmGordo says:
Barbara Boxer has led a charmed political life – perhaps this is the year that charm ends.
First, she won her 1992 primary with 43% of the vote, as the two more moderate Democrats in the race, Leo McCarthy and Mel Levine, split most of the rest of electorate.
Second, instead of moderate Tom Campbell (sound familiar?) she faced ultra-right-wing TV commentator Bruce Herschensohn. This close race was tipped near the end when the allegedly moral Herschensohn was revealed to be a regular reader of pornographic material at Hollywood newstands. Boxer still only won by 4%.
Third, in 1994 the California Republican Party committed a disastrous blunder that it is still trying to dig its way out of – getting behind an anti-immigrant (and, it turns out, unconstitutional) measure which passed, but alienated Mexican-American voters from the party. As a result, Boxer faced weakened opponents in 1998 and 2004, (Matt Fong and Bill Jones) winning easily.
Through her 18 years in the Senate, Boxer has pushed a far-left agenda (compare it with her mainstream Democratic colleague, Senator Feinstein). Perhaps this is the year her political luck runs out.
June 3, 2010, 4:21 pmnicehonesty says:
So, were only Republicans allowed to vote in the Davis recall, or was it open to all California voters?
Unless it’s the first case, no one has offered anything which invalidates MDT’s observation in her June 2, 2010, 10:08 pm comment:
June 3, 2010, 4:25 pmAnatid says:
No, we all voted. When you’re effectively holding a new, premature gubernatorial election, it’s impolite to disenfranchise half the state …
June 3, 2010, 5:06 pmDesiderius says:
“I wasn’t defending Davis generally, just noting that the recall was a travesty and that it was, contra MDK’s comment, led by Republicans.”
Uh, again, the R’s can lead all they want, but unless I’m mistaken they haven’t enjoyed many followers in your fine state for a good long while, which also leads one to think that maybe some Kausian self-searching might be in order, considering where the state has gone in that time.
June 3, 2010, 11:35 pmneurodoc says:
Yeah, but in fewer and fewer numbers and only in “preserves” like Maine.
June 4, 2010, 1:35 amleo marvin says:
IIRC, California’s been electing Republican governors at roughly the same rate for the last 40 years as it has for the last 150, (i.e., about two years of Republican governors for every year of a Democratic governor.)
June 4, 2010, 5:11 amJoe says:
Kaus is a tool. He has made a career of being a tool and many people — even those who know him personally — have made the point. His efforts at Slate and elsewhere was of the b.s. gadfly variety too often to take him seriously here. Sorry if we are supposed to ignore this because he is running some apparent vanity campaign that is trying to make him look like some independent voice.
June 4, 2010, 9:21 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Joe,
Kaus is a tool. He has made a career of being a tool and many people — even those who know him personally — have made the point.
A tool of whom or what? And can you cite any of these “[people] who know him personally”? One would be a start.
His efforts at Slate and elsewhere was of the b.s. gadfly variety too often to take him seriously here.
Your efforts here is of the content-free variety. IIRC it was Socrates who introduced the “gadfly” image; he called himself one. I can think of worse role models.
Sorry if we are supposed to ignore this
Ignore what? That you didn’t like his Slate column? And who’s “we”?
because he is running some apparent vanity campaign that is trying to make him look like some independent voice.
I think at this point you really ought to be more explicit. You say Kaus is a “tool” and that he’s trying to “look like some independent voice” when he isn’t. Oughtn’t you to tell us who the puppet-master is?
June 4, 2010, 11:06 amDesiderius says:
LM,
“IIRC, California’s been electing Republican governors at roughly the same rate for the last 40 years as it has for the last 150, (i.e., about two years of Republican governors for every year of a Democratic governor.)”
As usual, you got me, though I tend to forget Republicans I’m not so hot for.
= )
Then again, I think your statehouse and local government is where the biggest problems lie, as with us.
June 5, 2010, 11:36 amleo marvin says:
You guys keep winning spelling bees. You must be doing something right.
June 5, 2010, 7:25 pm