Democrats ... Unite!

The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Republican Party. The party's liberal platform is largely considered center-left in the U.S. political spectrum. The party has the lengthiest record of continuous operation in the United States. The party had 72 million registered voters in 2004. President Barack Obama is the 15th Democrat to hold the office.

I myself am a Democrat, however I am not one who only sides with my party in every political situation. I understand that what I'm about to say is impossible and defeats the purpose of Democracy, but i feel to form a more perfect union, all the parties should bounce ideas off each other and gain rather than oppose every notion. Just create a super party, the Indemorepublictarians!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

While it's sheer size alone makes any California election a focus of national attention, a combination of high-profile and big money races in this particular mid-term will make the Golden State among the most closely watched in the nation. Control of the senate could hinge upon the outcome of Carly Fiorina's bid to replace Barbara Boxer, while Meg Whitman's $160 Million campaign for Governor has been one of the biggest national stories of this campaign cycle. Likewise, high-profile ballot initiatives like Prop 19, which would legalize and tax marijuana in the state, and Prop 23, which would repeal California's climate laws, could have major implications for the country as a whole.

Frankly, I am happy with the results of this election. Even though this excerpt talks about the Republican side of the election, Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer won. In regards to the Props, I have a soft spot for prop 21 not passing, i think it really would have been beneficial to California's state parks but the deed has been done. The disapproval of Prop 19 wasn't a surprise but I am contempt. As for the results for the other props I am pleased with their outcome, however it was a close race. Finally, with the Republicans regaining control of the House of Reps., I am slightly disappointed but do realize that not much can be done with the three branches of govt. split two to one. Hopefully next election the missing pieces will be put back and our nation will grow stronger and even more unified.

Source the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/02/california-elections-2010_n_777752.html#s169855

Tea Baggers!

Why are Republicans hopeful their party will gain Congressional seats during the
2010 midterm elections? What factors might disrupt these hopes for the Republicans?

Republicans are hopeful to win Congressional seats during the 2010 midterm election because currently the three branches of govt. are of Democrat majority. This allows Democrats to pass their legislator more easily. The Republican Party wants to posses more political control and halt the Democrats and their progress. One factor that could disrupt Republican hopes is the fact that most of their candidates are considered to radical and obnoxious for any branch of the govt. If the Democrats dominate this election, the Republicans will have to wait for the next Presidential election to even attempt to take majority control of the government.

Explain the reasons the Tea Party formed and what message this sends to both
Republican and Democratic parties. What impact do you think the Tea Party will
have on the 2010 midterm elections?

The Tea Party feels that Congress refuses to listen to the people. The party want less govt. control and were established to try and change this. I feel that the The Tea Party was established to be like a "born again" Republican Party because Republicans feel that they have made so many mistakes in the past (election of George W. Bush) and it was time to for a "fresh start". The Tea Party is fully funded by Republican money as well. The impact that "Tea Bags" have is that they are taking votes away from the Democrats and Republicans. There is no way that they will win any elections but they're crippling the other parties.

My source was my politically savvy grandmother Sandra J. Rawlins :)

Prop 25!

California Proposition 25 is the Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act. Supporters turned in about 1.1 million signatures to election officials on May 6. The proposal is an initiated constitutional amendment.The goal of the proposal is to end the current requirement in the state that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature must vote in favor of the state's budget in order for a budget to be enacted. It also requires state legislatures to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion.

There is nothing much to say on my part for the prop, but this is what I got out of it.

1. Changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget and spending bills related to the budget from two-thirds to a simple majority.

2. It provides that if the Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day the Legislature passes a budget bill.

California Prop. 23 vs. A.B. 32

Aside from the question of which party will control the House and Senate for the next two years, next month's mid-term elections also feature a number of important state contests, including California's closely-watched Prop 23, a ballot initiative that would suspend enforcement of the state's major greenhouse gas legislation, Assembly Bill 32. Prop 23 has national implications, since California has taken a leadership position on emissions regulations at a time when national climate policy has become deadlocked. Yet as I've watched the coverage of Prop 23 in the blogosphere and mainstream media, I've been amazed by the consistent mischaracterization of precisely what is at stake in this initiative, most recently in Tom Friedman's Column in yesterday's New York Times. Californians surely deserve a better assessment of the issues involved.

Personally I'm going to vote no on Prop 23. Based on all the advertisements on t.v. about the proposition imploring the people to vote no, there were interesting points brought up. Also, i am in favor of stopping Texas oil companies' schemes to repeal clean energy and air pollution standards. In my opinion, a cleaner California is a better one. However, making such a transition will be arduous and expensive!

Mary Jane is still in the Game

A ballot measure to make California the first state to legalize the sale and use of marijuana has won the support of one of the state’s most powerful union, officials said Monday, offering the proposition a shot of mainstream legitimacy as well as a potential financial and organizational lift. The decision by the executive board of the Service Employees International Union of California will be announced in the next few days, according to officials who have been briefed about it but were not allowed to speak publicly before it was announced.

Prop 19 is continuing to gain support from many diverse unions! However, I have recently read the proposition and have discussed it with my friends. We collectively feel that "it could be better." Im starting to second guess my support but not to the point where i will vote no. Hopefully if prop 19 is approved, with the support of such unions like the Service Employees International Union of California it will not be a mistake.

Im Surprised Arnold!

The California Governor, Schwarzenegger, who opposes Proposition 19, signed a landmark bill in the state of California which decriminalizes the possession of marijuana. For those wondering, this does not make marijuana possession legal, but it no longer will be a misdemeanor offense. Instead of the mandatory fine of $100 as well as the mandatory appearance in front of a judge, the outcome of being caught with marijuana will now simply be a $100 fine. The new law will be in effect on January 1st and include anyone caught with up to an ounce of marijuana. Basically the possession of the drug is seen no different by California now than speeding is.

This is interesting to me because it makes Arnold look like a hypocrite, however I agree with his decision. I personally always disagreed with the law about possession of marijuana (not that I myself have gotten in trouble) unless the suspect was under the influence and was operating a car or something that could endanger his/her life and others. Anyways, this is just one step closer to the approval of Prop 19, which could either be acceptable or a complete disaster.