Proposition 77 Ads -

[Moochy]

Has anyone from California seen this ad? A granny saying "money money money" and acting all crochety shaking her cane. The Schwarzenegger campaign are such idiots if they think this is effective.

http://www.voteyesonprop77.com/



transcript from the sacbee:

Redistrict California, a committee supporting Proposition 77, will launch a $2 million television advertising campaign Monday. Its commercial will air for one week on both cable and network stations statewide.

The 30-second spot features a professional actress, Sacramento-area resident Golden Henning, who portrays a disgusted elderly voter belittling the Legislature outside her home.

The following is the text and an analysis by Jim Sanders of The Bee Capitol Bureau.

WOMAN: Legislature, ha, ha. I wouldn't. ... They're a bunch of. ... Well, never mind.

VOICE-OVER: Legislators draw their own districts, so they can't lose.

WOMAN: I wouldn't give you 2 cents for the whole bunch of 'em.

Sell It Yourself VOICE-OVER: Proposition 77 has independent judges draw district lines, not the politicians.

WOMAN: They rig the election; they rig everything. And what do you get for it? Nothing. All they do is money, money, money.

VOICE-OVER: Stop the politicians. Yes on 77.

ANALYSIS: The offbeat TV spot - with a feisty, cane-waving "voter" - attempts to tap into a deep vein of dissatisfaction with legislators and big-money politics to solicit support for Proposition 77, which would change how political boundaries are drawn.

emphasis mine.

[cascadiance]

1. Stop "The Politician"! Vote the first six down!

[FrannyD]

2. I didn't see that

I Tivo so I don't watch commercials. I did see what was essentially a long commercial on KTVU News last night. They want on and on about the prop, and what the Republicans want you to beleive, and then for the opposing view they talked to Perata for like 10 sec., and they kept saying it is being opposed by Repubs, but never said who they were. Unfuckingbeleivable!!!!

[Moochy]

3. Channel 5 was just as bad

Channel 2 KTVU got a call from fox HQ I guess.
CBS affiliate was just as bad with their coverage of the propositions last nite.

Local media in the Bay Area is so irrelevant.

[Tiggeroshii]

5. Most repubs are for 77, but there have been a few vocal congressmen

against it.

I'm pretty sure Ken Calvert, Bill Thomas and one other. They say it's endangering their incumbancy and the Republican party can't take the risk.

It's obvious the Democrats are against it just because it will likely lose them seats in California. They've been for the initiative in Ohio because it'd gain them seats. Can't you see there's a little bit of self interest in behind their support for the redistrictings? It's all silly. I don't care who draws the districts, the incumbants shouldn't be doing it... My support for 77 stands.

[democracyindanger]

6. Typical 77 supporter

Doesn't display any knowledge of the mechanics of the measure. Doesn't argue in favor of any specifics of the proposition. Suggests 77 is exactly the same thing as RON. Just waves the anti-incumbent flag.

If you're going to enable the GOP, at least do so in an informed manner.

[Tiggeroshii]

7. I wasn't explaining WHY I supported it, I just said I supported it

If you want to know why, I'll tell you. I was just answering the substance of the thread. I don't know about you, but I think the legislature is prettyself interested when making laws or doing anything else that's in their power to do and that includes drawing districts. A baby would do a more adequate and concise and fair job at drawing our districts than the legislature does. This is one of those things where the mechanics of the bill has nothing to do with why somebody should support it. O sama fuckin bhin laden can do a better job at drawing our districts than we do.

Give me a break....

[democracyindanger]

10. And you still can't explain why

outside of a vague "I don't trust the incumbents" argument.

You say nothing about voting on redistricting organized in the very districts you're voting on whether you approve or not--

You say nothing about the absence of parameters about how the districts should be drawn, aside from the vague "compactness" directive--

You say nothing about an immediate redistricting using 5-year-old census data--

You say nothing about the redistricting being done by judges who are in no way accountable to the electorate--

You say nothing about the fact that the pool of retired judges being chosen from have been overwhelming selected by Republican governors, and are overwhelmingly elderly white males, yet they are supposed to represent the diversity of California--

77 isn't about fairness, or competitiveness. It's about manufacturing GOP seats in an overwhelmingly progressive state.

[Tiggeroshii]

12. If that's your concern, here:

As for my district, it needs help, needs to be redistricted like every other one in California.

As for the "absence of paramters," I think if you read the initiative, you'll find it's pretty clear as to how and where the districts can be drawn. Very strict guidelines as well.

Doesn't matter how old the data is really. Do you REALLy think that the way our districts lare alligned right now are accomadting of the 2000 census data? The proportionality of our lines are only there to help the congressman they represent: The representative chooses their district regardless of teh census data, they only stick with the mandatory laws such as approximate size of the district and you can pretty much tell how many people are in the district without another census report.

The pool of retired judges being selected from are to be composed of 12 judges selected by democrats and 12 selected by republicans as directed in the initiative. I don't believe half is overwhelmingly republican.

Prop 77 will make seats more competetive despite the outcome.

[Moochy]

16. Why make more seats competitve

Why give up more seats? For some false sense of fairness?
This only benefits republicans.

Jerry mandering is part of our system. to fix it in CA only a hugely democratic state, is shooting the party in the foot.

[Tiggeroshii]

19. Is the party all that matters?

I mean, really, if we are going to pay any retribution to the electorate, you might as well start with not choosing your own voters.. The whole point is to keep these people from doing that. If this gets others to change their methods in other states(having an independent commission do the redistricting), then all the better. Holding your loyalty primarily to the party is shooting yourself in the foot and giving way to more corrupt methods used by those in power.

Ohio's redistricting will certainly HELP Democrats in in 08, and the only people who seem to be supporting that is Democrats. Funny they aren't doing that here. Look at it this way: If things really get as bad for the GOP as it's turning out to be, close races will more than likely turn our direction: It will most likely be the only way the Dems can win a majority. I seriously don't see why they aren't all over this. With nearly all the GOP leadership under criminal scrutiny, it would be a no brainer to win close races...

[Moochy]

21. You act as if Gerrymandering is some new evil

I'm voting no personally, but I appreciate your attempt to convince me that this is a good idea. Look who is backing it, and tell me if you agree with their politics.

Look who is against it, and why.

on edit grammar

[Tiggeroshii]

22. Terminator is also for the Ohio redistricting

He's the only repug to campaign for it, despite the fact it would only help Dems. I don't agree with most of his politics but I do think he's right on this particular issue.

[Moochy]

23. My fear is that in dealing with this issue..

on a state by state basis, starting with CA seems like it could benefit only republicans, since more seats are going to be "in-play" in 2008.

So while I really dont have much problem with many of the shape of the districts in CA, even the long skinny coastal ones, I understand why the "fairness" of the measure seems appealing. I just think that the measure is a wolf in sheeps clothing, given who is backing it.

Thanks for the info though, fascinating divisive proposition!

as an aside, In general I'm opposed to our system of propositions here, it's too prone to astroturf measures, direct representation like this is too easy to mess with, by traitorous demagogues who frankly don't have California's best interests in mind.

Cheers

[Tiggeroshii]

24. But, but.. California's NOT the first state to do it..

Washington did it in 94 along with many other states in the last decade. California is now only one of the few that does NOT have an independant commission drawing it's lines. So that's not to say that all the states with independant commissions drawing district lines are perfect in terms of that - there is still much to be done in making elections more fair, but I do think that they are a start.

[Moochy]

25. Ah I did not know that

Still I will be political and opportunistic in your book this time, an vote against it, if only to spite the governator. thanks for the info!

cheers

[Tiggeroshii]

26. Comon' now...

Voting primarily to spite the governator -if there were environmental proposals made by him you'd probably be all for it! I really really don't think that just cause one party supports it it's bad. That's just.. that's just not right. Right after 2000, the state legislator redistricted through a bipartisan congressional comittee that secured a Democratic majority but also gave 20 seats to the Republicans to secure their majority in the House. This keeps them from really having to worry about their seats in a predominantly liberal state...

It's clear that a few Republicans are seeing that this is threatening their seats and they also see the direction the political tides are turning. It's not looking good, and closer elections will become worse for the GOP as their leaders go to jail....

[Moochy]

27. What can i say?

I guess I'm irrational in my opposition to Arnold? :)

And on edit, i would oppose an environmental bill backed by Arnold.

Why? because it would undoubtedly be half as good as it should be, and full of kickbacks to his politically connected republican donor industries.

[Tiggeroshii]

28. He's just one of those guys I guess...

I don't think he's the antichrist though, I think he's doing what he wants the best way he sees it but, like, he hates having to talk to people! He really doesn't seem to be liking it. Like, watzis name? Ventura? Jesse Ventura? He didn't like politics much either. I think gubernator should seriously answer to the calls of his wife and go home...

[Moochy]

29. We agree on that for sure

We agree, that front-men politicians are generally incomptent bozos, who can't legislate or govern effectively. Career politicians often know how to talk to the public, and when to eat crow.

Too easily pricked, their egos are everything.

[Tiggeroshii]

30. Typically why a lot of Lawyers and such become good

politicians, in my mind. Arnold has pretty much been a playboy all his life and never knew what it meant to negotiate. I'm sure we also agree that this special election is a load of bull. If he can't get his bills passed through a state legislator elected by the majority of the state, what makes him think he could get it through the state the way he wants it? So dumb...

[mitchtv]

38. why do you want to give the minority party Parity?

it's called surrender .5more repub seats?, oh then we'll really be well represented.fuck 'm and keep the whole state represented. Arnold loooves you thanks a lot

[xxqqqzme]

31. I'll vote agaimst it BECAUSE

od steroid boy - he should NOT B allowed 2 'appoint' the commission judges. He is a saurovian stooge and he is bringing the neo-con agenda 2 CA by way of the proposition. The rat bastard ought 2 deal w/ the legislature as have all previous governors.

77 is yet another money waster. It requires a NEW census 2 draw the NEW districts...WHO pays for that census????AND then once the 2010 census rolls around the districts get redrawn yet again?!?! - We are already half way 2 the next census. NO on 77 - talk 2 me again in 2008!

[Tiggeroshii]

32. He doesn't appoint them.

They are decided out of a pool of 12 dem and 12 repug appointed retired judges. They are decided through process of elimination. There will be no census to decide the new lines, but rather the redistricting would be based on old census data. The way the lines are drawn now are hardly consistent with the old census data so the least we could do is draw lines consistent with that. There will be no new census whether you think it's needed or not.

This will be a permanent commission to draw the district lines, and they will redraw them according to the 2010(four year waiting period) so you'll have fair lines and then more fair lines in 2010(I hardly think that's inappropriate compared to our current state of our district lines). Maybe you're right though, maybe it would be better to do this in 2008 rather than now, but IMHO the system needs to start changing sooner rather than later when it comes to elections.

[cascadiance]

33. Why should there be 12 repug judges in that pool?!

That is giving Rethugs overrepresentation based on how many Rethugs are in the state. Where's a Green Party Judge? They get a lot of votes don't they? Methinks he's working from some imaginary census where there are half and half Dems and Rethugs living in California. I wonder how many Rethugs he'd have to fly in from out of state for that census to be accurate!

[Tiggeroshii]

34. Democrats need to understand this will most likely be the only way

to win a House majority in 06. IMHO, the only seats that will be at stake are the rethug -they're the party that's been having the trouble lately, yeah? Close races will be worse for them, not us.

[cascadiance]

35. Huh? EVERYONE runs for re-election in the house!

Can't we do this legislation later after we have a Dem in power at governor's slot? What would be FAR better in getting bad politicians out of office than redistricting would be for us to work for clean elections laws in place instead. That would be certain to get rid of a number of "highly paid" encumbents that would have to face a more even playing field of newer candidates that aren't about doing "fundraisers" all of the time! Why do we need redistricting now. This is just a ploy for Rethugs to gain power. It will do NOTHING for us and will likely screw us over when other chips (voting machines, etc.) are already stacked against us now. Now is NOT the time for this sort of redistricting change.

I just really don't see the math helping out Dems. Once we have something like clean elections in place, there will be more people that work to be accountable to the voters who would be more apt to help bring about proper redistricting reform, not this knee-jerk ploy to try to have the GOP take over California.

You still haven't explained to me what statistics show that there are an equal number of GOP voters to Dem voters here in California which would merit them having EQUAL representation on this board. That board should be represented by population. Otherwise, it becomes more of an electoral college type mess where we get short changed again on our representation (as do other parties such as the Greens and the Libertarians).

[Tiggeroshii]

36. The re elect rate of incumbents has become pretty indefinite over a decade

The districts are too gerrymandered in favor of incumbents that it doesn't matter what the public opinion is nationally for the incumbent to win re election. The only reason the districts are like this is because the legislator works in favor of keeping their jobs as long as possible. Did you know that the 2000-2004 elections almost perfectly emulated the rigged House elections in Russia? As soon as we get an independent commission of I-don't-care-who, we'll start getting closer to a fair election cycle.

Statistical representation in a pool to select the independent committee doesn't matter as much as the fact it will be independent from the legislature. It works to give some representation in one way or another to each party however accurate statistically it may or may not be.

[cascadiance]

37. Well, I just look at it more strategically than you.

There are a LOT MORE than just gerrymandering problems that affect how our government is structured now (campaign financing (aka BRIBERY the way it is set up now), redistricting efforts like the one in Texas, lack of public financing for elections, voting machine fraud), which I think are FAR MORE important to fix first before we fix this problem which has been with us for a LONG time and I would venture to say has a lot less bad impact on us than these other problems. If you try to fix this one first and don't attend to the others, the Rethugs may get too much power to the point that we won't have a sufficient Democracy to fix *ANYTHING* at that point.

Here's an analogy. You get sick from someone serving you fried rotten eggs each day for breakfast. You know something's got to get fixed to stop having you get sick from it. Someone suggests scrambling them instead of frying them to fix the problem. You then eat scrambled rotten eggs and still get sick! See how just stirring the pot often won't solve the fundamental problems?

What I see here with this proposition has so many warning flags that make it unfair and likely make things worse rather than better. We need a better solution to this problem than the one presented. I'm not willing to "just try anything". If I'm already sick with other diseases that make getting sick from rotten eggs worse, I might want to choose to address those first if I feel like I can make a bigger difference there and keep me from dying than if I just focus on scrambling my eggs instead of fixing the real causes of my illnesses.

[mitchtv]

39. I suggest it go on your Visa card

and those others desiring more republican stooges in office

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[democracyindanger]

11. Dean fan, huh?

Bite me and Howard both.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/17/BAGHAF9B641.DTL

[Tiggeroshii]

13. Feisty one.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moochy]

18. NIX THE FIRST SIX!

The gropenator is supporting them, nuff said.

[jfern]

4. $2 million of money, money, money

LOL

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tiggeroshii]

20. What happened?

What's wrong with "please buy this pen?" Did he change it or something?

[tjwash]

14. Major funding by AG Spanos huh?

Alex Spanos is a fucking prick. He has been making regular trips up to Sacramento to visit his cabana boy Ah-nold. He is also a major reason they are trying to bend the eminent domain laws in California, so the old bastard can snatch land in prime areas at will.

Just the fact it is being funded by that robber baron should give anyone with an inkling of common sense a reason to vote no.

[Moochy]

17. No kidding

I'm suprised by the stupidity, yes STUPIDITY of so-called independents who share many democratic values that are hooked by this crappy proposition.

A sucker is born every minute, and besides look at the granny, she's fed up just like you suckers.