November 11, 2005


Terminatable: Beaten by unions and beset by Angelides, Arnold looks shaky for 2006 (HAROLD MEYERSON, 11/11/05, LA Weekly)

Their weekly e-mail accidentally labels this essay correctly: "HAROLD MEYERSON on labor’s looming fight to regain control of California."

That, after all, is what's actually at stake here, whether public sector unions, the bureaucracy, or instead the citizenry will run government.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 11, 2005 11:50 AM

Public workers should never have been allowed to unionize in the first place. The unfortunate timing of the internet bubble during a time of total Democratic domination of state politics means CA is well and truly screwed, with no hope of righting itself.

Posted by: b at November 11, 2005 12:52 PM

It's far too early to count Arnold out of the fight.

The initiatives were confusing and held in an off-year special election, when Big Labor could spend tons of money, gather a head of steam, and turn out their voters.

Next time around, Arnold will be the issue, not a load of confusing policy changes. And when the issue is Arnold himself he can't lose.

He'll be back.

Posted by: H.D. Miller at November 11, 2005 1:39 PM

Parents have to be made to understand that teachers aren't in it for the good of the students. Kids get drawn into the argument and go home to tell their parents their teachers said to vote for them and not the rich Republicans.

The initiatives need a lot of simple easy to understand ads that explain it all to voters in a way that engages their feelings. Facts and figures are less than useless.

Posted by: tefta at November 11, 2005 1:46 PM

He should remind them Nissan is leaving and so will others.

Posted by: Sandy P at November 11, 2005 1:48 PM

Sandy: Why should the public unions care? They're the dominant voice in the modern labor movement in much of the country. And trying to argue that when companies flee the tax base goes down and then how do you pay for their ridiculous pensions will just make their eyes glaze over...

Posted by: b at November 11, 2005 1:59 PM

Whereas it's never too early for the media to proclaim a democrat House in 2006, a Hillary presidency on 08, etc., etc. I remember reading, the day after Grey Davis was elected to his first term, that he had to be put on the list of leading candidates for national office in 2000.

Posted by: ed at November 11, 2005 3:48 PM

As it turns out, one of the advantages the union had in this election is they were able to run their campaign without a public face, since the propositions were all that were on the ballot. So their fate was tied more directly to Arnold while his opponents didn't have to worry about anyone at the top of their ballot being the official face of the anti-initiative movement.

Any propositions that get on the ballot next November will be tied to whomeever the Democrats nominate for governor, and he/she in turn will have to defend opposition to those ballot initiatives. That doesn't mean the same measures might not fail again, but the actions and statements of the nominee would be a major factor in determining their fate.

Posted by: John at November 11, 2005 8:05 PM

-5 points for using the word "citizenry." I don't want to hear any "polity" or governance" from you either.

Posted by: Tom at November 12, 2005 9:04 AM

Our polity is a citizenry.

Posted by: oj at November 12, 2005 9:13 AM

If I want to hear someone talk like a Harvard Poli Sci prof, I'll go to the Harvard POli Sci Dept's web site.

P.S.: Anomie. Hah.

Posted by: Tom at November 12, 2005 4:09 PM
« CONSERVATIVES AGAINST AMERICANS (via Robert Schwartz): | Main | AH, THE THIRD WAY (via Gene Brown): »