1 Don't take council of your fears. The parties will respectively elect in their primaries, candidates who reflect their spirit. The D's just get whackier and whackier. They're not without resources, but Dean is just a frosted flake who used his position as a candidate to salve his ego by taking something that he could. The left has lied to itself, and believed. They tell themselves that they're the mainstream, but the last twenty years of political history has proved that they are not. They have not come to terms with the truth yet, and as all you twelve-steppers know, first you have to admit you have a problem. They don't think they do. It'll take them at least ten years to get there. Then they'll have to get someone to listen.

2 yeah, clinton the liberal. Who enacted doma, welfare reform, nafta, return of the federal death penalty and the balanced budget at the cost of health care? Cause it wasn't no liberal. hahahahahahahaha

3 Dawn is closer to the truth than Casca. One should never underestimate the urge for power. Ultimately, the Republicans in California came to terms with Pete Wilson, and he brought them eight years of Governorship. Then they got greedy and went for Dan Lungren. The result was Gray Davis. The Democrats will find anyone they can to get back in the White House. Hillary is hip to that. Howard Dean, screamer that he is, was a moderate Governor of Vermont, plus, he's got a smart Jewish wife who will explain the facts of life to him. As a moderate Republican, I am always concerned with the balance of power. Yes, I like it when we have R's running the show, but not to the extent that we lose sight of the middle. Once that happens, we are lost. Hillary is the biggest threat to America I can imagine. Kerry, Michael Moore, Kennedy, Leahy, Pelosi, Reid, Shumer, etc. are a blessing to us, but we need to be careful of being careless. The price of liberty is still eternal vigilance; let's not go to sleep or gloat too much.

4 Oh, Bill's a liberal all right. He just cares more about Bill Clinton than any principle.

5 Shelly you don't know SHIT about California politics, or electoral politics in general. You can take your bullshit non-partisan judicial political experience and blow it out your meally-mouthed middle-of-the-road ass. That is all.

6 The fact is, as long as the GWOT and homeland security are important issues with the electorate, a Democrat will not be elected. The Democrats have showed themselves to be unserious about defense and the protection of this country. Howard Dean represents that unseriousness. The Democrats can either join the political mainstream on defense, or they will have to wait for another "1992" when the electorate feels its safe to elect a Democrat.

7 Dean is, in fact, the very definition of a knee-jerk liberal. Just recall the "bike path" incident. And putting him in as the Man In Charge of the Opposition to the Evil Republicans means his knees will be jerking constantly and with such magnificent force that he'll literally be kicking his own ass with every step. And the Dems will keep him in because that's the kind of energy they seem to want right now. Also because all the money supporting the party right now belongs to the moonbats.

8 Clinton is always was, and still is a liberal; he's just a clever one. The stuff for which he takes credit was all conceived and carried by the Gingrich led Congress that was content to have its ideas stolen as long they were enacted into law. There was little Democratic congressional support for most of Clinton's "victories". I guess, since Casca tells me so, that I don't know much about politics, which is pretty interesting inasmuch as I've made a pretty good living at it for over 40 years. But then again, I'm still learning, whereas he seems to know it all already. Aren't we lucky he honors this site with his foul mouthed commentary?

9 Clever/self-serving opportunist: You say tomato, I say tomahto.

10 Ok, Ok, u DO know squat. How's that? You posit that Cali Republicans are out of power because they failed to triangulate. Is that not what you're saying? If so, you're wrong. If anything, two decades of nominating milquetoasts has given us the twin syphalitic twats of BB & Feinstein. The obsticles facing the party here are: Money - you just don't get bang for your buck in a California statewide race. Much cheaper to knock off the Senate Minority Leader in South Dakota. You might ponder how that was done considering Thune's views. Geography - It's too fucking big, so it's complicated. It has all of the challanges of running a national campaign. Demographics - There isn't a homogeneous culture. This place is crawling with aliens of all sort, legal and illegal. As a group they tend to be ignorant and uneducated, thus attracted to the boob bait. They also provide a ready pool of fraud voters for the Union Thugs. Govenerment tit-suckers - Big budgets = lots of indolent fucks selling their souls for pieces of silver, and voting a straight ticket. If you knew anything about real (not judicial) electoral politics, you'd know that the tightrope walked by ALL candidates is to appeal to the base in the primary (that's why the R's won't nominate Rudy, and the D's will go for the whackdoodle du jour if the msm isn't there to prop someone else up) then move back to the middle in the general. Judicial races are apples to oranges. Who the fuck ever knew what a judge stood for? You don't, because they don't. Anni, when they come to kill all the lawyers, tell them you know me.

11 Casca, Chill. (& the lawyer quote you referenced was meant to speak of legislators, not attorneys.) Miss Annika, I disagree in part. The rpeubs don't need na ecxcuse to lean towards the center. That's where they see the majority of votes at. They need an excuse to lean right. So a weak Dem party won't make them feel free to get all uber-conservative. It'll make their drift towards the left easier to accomadate. Look at the effect Arnie is or will soon be having on the Cali republican party. A RINO wins an election that will spur more RINO's not more McClintocks. What escapes most people is that in politics winning often becomes more important than the ideas you wanted to win int he first place. Arnie was no conservative. Hell he was barely a republican. But republicans flocked to him because "he had a chance of winning". what you'll find is that the term RINO will become meaningless as the entire party will be filled with RINO's changing what republican means as a party. This will be in part due to natural tendencies but to some degree because the repubs don't have a conservative opposition party to keep them in line, or a large conservative base who is willing to put principle over party.

12 Casca: If you are a lawyer, I suggest you either have your secretary proof read your stuff or get spellchecker. Yes, I know a bit about judicial politics, but the first thing you have to know is that there are few elections. The politics are in the appointment process, not the one or two elections we have each two years or so. That has nothing to do with why California is owned by the Democrats, temporarily. That began in the late 50's, when we had it all. Earl Warren was the Republican Governor, Goodie Knight the Lt. Gov., and an arrogant guy named William Knowland was the U.S. Senator and a power in the U.S. Senate. His family had owned the Oakland Trib for years and he decided that when Warren was appointed Chief Justice (a deal that got Nixon[our other Senator] the VP slot) he'd just run for Governor against our own incumbent, Goodie Knight, who became Gov. when Warren was appointed. Knight had nowhere to go, so he ran for Senator, and that was the beginning of Democratic control of California. Pat Brown, the former DA of SF was AG and ran for Governor and won; Clair Engel, a Red Bluff Congressman was elected Senator, and Mosk became AG. We still had Kuchel as the other Senator, but he was more Demo than they, even though he had an (R.) after his name. Since then it has been uphill. Reagan almost turned it around, and we got Deuk elected because California was not ready for a black Governor (Bradley) and Pete elected because he had beaten Jerry Brown for the senate eight years earlier and could win. But we have lost it in the Assembly and Senate, because without Pete to veto the reapportionment, Brulte cut a deal to keep all our Congressmen and gave up a chance to get a much better and meaningful share of the Assembly and Senate. Gray went along because he didn't care about the House at the time. The party cannot seem to put up a decent candidate to beat either Diane or Barbara. Tom Campbell could have in the first election against Barbara, but the White House kept Sonny Bono in and he pulled enough of the moderate vote to let Herschenson squeek through by 2%. It was the worst mistake we made, of all of them. Tom is now Finance Director for Arnold and if Arnold pulls this off, it is only because Tom is brilliant and will devise the strategy and work the numbers. But, you're right, what the Hell do I know? Well, not much, but if we could get open primaries, I know we could get back to electing folks in the center who could govern this state without referendums and initiatives in vast quantities. Arnold is the best chance we've had in years, but he'd never have been nominated by his party initially. Hell, Simon beat Riordan and gave it to Gray the second time. To quote Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us". Or, better yet, to quote Chuck Muth, "Republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Last point: Everyone thought that with Bush's election, Calfornia could get some coattail help. But the person designated by the Bush folks was not concerned with that; he was only concerned with reelecting Bush, consequently, the California Party was starved out. No stars came to help raise money, except for Bush, which promptly got sent elsewhere. The RNC guys controlled all the cards, until Arnold came along and changed things a little. Now there is a chance to change things a lot with the initiative process plan he is advancing. Intead of crying about things, here is a real opportunity to change the climate in California. Will business put up the bucks and will the voters do it? Stand by...

13 Publicola, see my comments below in re: condescending prick. Shell: LMAO, so I made a couple typos did I? Where is it that lawyers learn to be such condescending pricks? Well at least your comments are finally substantive. You miss it though when you expect anything to come from the national party or politicians in general. They merely react to reality. Most just want power, and will bend in any direction required to gain or maintain it. So issues for the professional pol are so much window-dressing. "Everyone thought that with Bush's election, Calfornia could get some coattail help." I never thought that. Go back and read what I wrote before. If the state fields weak Republican statewide candidates, it is because intelligent people do not risk their reputations and their fortunes in vain pursuits. Republican hopes in California are problematic for the reasons that I've listed above. I'm afraid that we're fated to be under the boot of the legislature until there is a seismic shift in the electorate. My one hope for Arnie, is that he could be that seismic force. I'm convinced that issues are secondary to him. He'd much rather build a dynasty, and if he's for that, I'm for him. Reagan was the ultimate political pragmatist, and he's walking in his footsteps.

14 Casca, there are some excellent decaffienated coffees out there, you know.

15 Ahhhhh yeeeeeeess, never touch the stuff. Fish fuck in it.

16 Casca, In regards to the condescending prick line... So, do you avoid decaf cause the fish intercourse extract turns you on & you feel guilty (you misunderstood that phrase "sleeps with the fishes" didn't ya?), or is it because the thought of fish engaging in an activity that you are inferior at (even whenst alone - well that would be the majority of the time wouldn't it?) disturbs you? That's approaching condescending. Condecending is not a simple admonition to chill & a correction on a misunderstanding of a line that's been kicked around a few centuries. Now if you wish to see how condescending I can be you're welcome to, but ya might wanna grab your favorite teddy bear/blankie/marital aid so you don't lose sight of the fact that it's only your feelings & self esteem that were obliterated. Or you could tone down the ametuer lip & we could have a meaningful discussion about some points that you raised. Yo' dime; you make the call. Shelly, I can respect your insight & your predictions/suppositions, but honestly from everything I've seen Cali seems like a lost cause. Even if the repubs did make some headway there it'd be at the expense of what the repubs used ot stand for (smaller government, etc...) & become a substitute for what the dems stood for (government is the means, etc...) & I fear that would drag the national scene down the same path (well, faster than it's going currently. Do you honestly think that there is a way to salvage Cali that's do-able?

17 Publicola: Thannks for the thoughts, likewise, Annie; you made me LOL. However, the answer is pretty much the way Casca describes it. I'm kind of surprised to hear it from him, especially after he called me meally-mouthed (sic.)middle of the road, etc. But, that is exactly what it takes for the R's to come back around here. Arnold is the consumate middle of the road guy, which is a good reason for me to support him. Pete was the same. The conservatives hated Pete (still do) and they really don't much like Arnold, except, they like winning. Funny, that's what I always thought might be important. Hard to move your agenda when you are an "out" instead of an "in". Even my buddy Tom Campbell, another middle of the roader, has finally figured that one out. So, yes, I totally support Arnold. I've raised and given way more than I can afford, but intend to keep it up as long as it moves in the right direction. His appointment of McPherson to Secretary of State is classic. The Dem's are in a lose-lose. Surrender or eat poop for fighting it; Arnopld is taking it to them. Perata has surrendered; Nunez is still considering. So, having learned as a judge to listen to the message and ignore the messenger, I say Casca's right on this one. And, by the way, my wife thinks I'm a condescending prick as well, so he may be right on that one too. That's what happens when you get used to winning. Maybe it'll happen to Casca once he gets the hang of it.

18 Pube, never fear. You'd have to hold a reader's attention long enough for them to care. Aside from your general demeanor, you're a snore.