Mike Hawk's Journal: LA Mayor's race

As a resident of the County, but not City, of Los Angeles, I get all the news of the Mayor's race with little of the self-interest. These are people who are ruled by democrats at every level of government from the state level down, and have always been, back to antiquity. It is easy to look up the freeway and see how the democrats have improved their lives. Oh wait, the City of Los Angeles is in shambles. I'd blame the politicians, but the people keep electing the same ones.

The ability of the people of Los Angeles to repeatedly punch themselves in the genitals and then complain when their genitals hurt rivals that of free people anywhere in the world.

once upon a time...

[Bill Dog]

They did have a Republican (or as some called him, a RINO*) mayor once, Richard Riordan. Back in 1993, when I was living there, in the San Fernando Valley. And I'll never forget the race: Riordan, being a rich guy, created a booklet with details of his plan(s), and mailed them to everyone. His opponent, Michael Woo, from the city council, just attacked Riordan, and when asked what he's done, just said that he "led the fight" on all kinds of vague things, but never mentioned actually accomplishing anything i

Riordan

[Mike Hawk]

Not a bad guy. Definitely a California Republican, though. He still had to deal with the insane city council though. Much as we have a Republican Governator, but he can't get anywhere with the Democrat-run Assembly.

And when Arnold tries to take the vote to the people, what happens? A group called "California for Democracy" shows up to stop him. Not convince people to not vote his way, mind you, stop the vote from even happening. California for Democracy my ass. I can't think of anything less democ

Re:Riordan

[NeMon'ess]

I can blame the Dems for favoring the Proposition process, but now trying to block it. (It is going to cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, including advertising) I can also blame the Reps in the mold of Pudge who are against the proposition process on the principle that the elected representatives should know better and not be fooled by shallow 30-second adverts. But now they're okay with it.

Seems to me the problem is that politicians get bought by corporations and interests, so they don't do w

Re:Riordan

[Mike Hawk]

I can blame the Dems for favoring the Proposition process, but now trying to block it. (It is going to cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, including advertising) I can also blame the Reps in the mold of Pudge who are against the proposition process on the principle that the elected representatives should know better and not be fooled by shallow 30-second adverts. But now they're okay with it.

Both oversimplifications and irrelevent to the topic. I am none of those people so I don't see what it

Re:Riordan

[NeMon'ess]

By California Republican, do you mean realizing that pure anything is bad? Pure communism or pure capitalism are both bad from extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. Socialism is actually in the center of them. It provides both some economic freedom and some quality of life safety nets.

Re:Riordan

[Mike Hawk]

Alrighty...by California Republican I mean the type of person it would take to win an election as a Republican in a blue city in a blue county in a blue state. It has little to do with economic systems. Try more guesses about how a California Republican might differ from a Republican, and if you can avoid silly generalities like "pure anything is bad" (what do you put in your drinking water to ensure that it isn't pure?), I'll be happy to confirm or deny them.

Re:Riordan

[NeMon'ess]

My impure water comes with minerals in it. The phrase works better with the word extreme. As in: "Anything taken to the extreme is bad. If it isn't bad yet, it hasn't been taken far enough.

Re:Riordan

[Mike Hawk]

That's my fault. It was meant to be a hinting accusation of drinking the kool-aid, and meant to be funny, but after I wrote it and thought about it I knew it was too subtle to be detected.

Question

[the_mad_poster]

Since republicans have controlled the country at the federal level during most of L.A.'s collapse, why is it that it's the democratic party's fault?

Because, crazy as it may seem, I know, I don't see any semblance of truth in your conclusion based on the fact that, well, you don't seem to have provided anything to support it.

Boring

[Mike Hawk]

Most of LA's collapse? The collapse that has been continuing since at least before the Watts Riots of 1965? Silly liberals. History didn't begin when W became President. King/Drew was Killer King long before the Contract with America.

And I'm not trying to support anything since I'm not trying to convince you of anything. If you can't see that the City of Los Angeles continues to be a slum despite the successes of the surrounding areas through numerous transitions at the federal level, I suppose it w