What a horrible couple of weeks for Californians.
Government is supposed to provide its people with three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Good governments remove obstacles between the people and these goals. Bad governments create them.
Simple, right? Of course our shared reality is more complicated. Restrictions on what a group or individual can do are absolutely necessary. Without them, it’s impossible to ensure that your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins. When government steps in to constrain your liberty, it must be because that restriction protects the life of your neighbor or guarantees their greater freedom.
Let’s apply this to something simple:
You have the right to vote. It’s enshrined in our Constitution because you are the foundation of our Republic. Ultimately, you grant the authority to make and enforce law. It’s important and government should do what it can to ensure your ability to vote isn’t obstructed. When you cast your vote that vote shall be recorded and counted the same as the vote of your neighbors.
Good government gives you mail-in ballots. It’s convenient and promotes liberty.
Bad government makes you stand in line for six hours to vote. It’s burdensome and restricts your ability to exercise your rights.
Here’s something a little more complex:
You have the right to a free education. It’s enshrined in the California Constitution because skill development is essential to ensuring every citizen has an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. It has an added benefit of assuring a literate electorate, which tends (historically) to resist tyranny. Good government should not restrict your access to your right to a free education.
Good government allows you to enroll in a school of your choosing and dedicates satisfactory resources to your development.
Bad government puts you on a wait list, tells you what school to attend, provides inadequate resources to your development, and pressures you to pay fees that is has no right to collect.
So what does any of this have to do with Democrats Hating You and Your Bear Constitution, Too?
This week, our government in Sacramento took one of California’s unique democratic traditions and abused it. As a result, you are less free than you were last Friday. It was done without a campaign or a single town hall. What’s worse is that it was done to great celebration and with overwhelming support by California’s ruling party: The Democrats.
I of course am talking about your Constitutionally guaranteed right to Recall.
Whoa, whoa, whoa– recall?
Yes. Recall. California guarantees some unique access to direct democracy. Unlike the Federal government, you have the right to make law. You may draft an Initiative for voter approval without ever getting a single elected official to vote on it. You have the right to veto new laws. You may reject legislation passed by elected officials for any reason by submitting a Referendum to a public vote. You also have the right to unilaterally remove an elected official. If for any reason an elected official causes you to lose faith in their ability to represent your interest, your ideals, or just your opinion, you have the right to have a simple majority of voters decide to remove that official.
These are your rights. They are not in dispute and you do not have to justify your desire to freely use them. Good government removes hurdles to free exercise of your rights and promote liberty. Bad government installs them. Nothing changes because these rights are guaranteed by the State of California and not the Federal document most of us are familiar with.
From our Constitution. My emphasis:
ARTICLE II VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SECTION 1.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.
SEC. 4.
The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.
SEC. 13.
Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer.
SEC. 14.
(a) Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall. Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable. Proponents have 160 days to file signed petitions.
(b) A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1 percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office.
SEC. 15.
(a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
SEC. 16.
The Legislature shall provide for circulation, filing, and certification of petitions, nomination of candidates, and the recall election.
Let’s be clear about something. Recall elections are disruptive, expensive, and rare. The end result may unite or divide a community through the removal of a duly elected official. Casual removal of your representatives is not a sign of a healthy Republic, but you have the right and responsibility to evaluate and decide what is causal, what is necessary, and who should be removed. As such, it is incumbent upon good government to ease access to your right to recall and to respect the will of the people. Encumbering this right is no different from encumbering any other.
To put it bluntly, if 20% of your neighbors who voted in the last election decide they want a recall, it’s the state’s job to make sure they have it. Any action taken to deliberately obstruct that right is illegal and tyrannical.
It doesn’t matter why they want a recall. It doesn’t matter how much it costs. It doesn’t matter how much information was available at the time signatures were collected. The quality of information used by your neighbor to arrive at a decision doesn’t matter either. You, the official being recalled, or the state doesn’t get to tell people to slow down, think about what they’re doing, and demand that folks exercise their freedom at some later date when cooler heads have prevailed. There is no right to slow down or impair a recall. There is only a right to qualify one.
What matters is what the people demand. The people have the right to alter their representation when it pleases them to do so. The state has an obligation to ensure that improper practices limiting ability of the people to exercise their will are eliminated. It’s right there in our Constitution. Plain as day.
Right now Democrats in Sacramento are getting ready to pass SB-96. You’ve probably never heard of it. It’s a trailer bill for this year’s budget, which means it has a lot of unrelated crap in it so it can be passed quickly and without public scrutiny. Changes in this budget bill revise the election code to make it functionally impossible for you to recall anyone.
It’s being rushed through with a provision to make it retroactively applicable to any recall processes currently underway– which means people who dedicated their time and money to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed right will immediately have their liberty impounded by the state. Time, effort, and property . . . all gone.
But why? Why would anyone want to curtail a Californian’s right to reform government for the public good?
Next week in Part II, we’ll discuss who really owns political power in California– and how they wield it. Spoiler Alert: It’s not you.
I’m glad to see this post here. Once I’ve met my midnight filing deadline — leading me to log out of FB and soon to delete this browser tab as well for the day — I will return and do my best to obliterate the argument that proponents had a legitimate interest not only in being able to mount a drive to recall Sen. Newman (they do) but in ensuring that they can do so by ensuring that the election takes place at the time when participation in it will be lowest.
They don’t. This is, as Ryan has argued previously, a purely political recall, pursued merely in order to to overturn an election result rather than to correct malfeasance or misfeasance. It’s not what Hiram Johnson had in mind and attempts to introduce appropriate reforms (in light of paid out-of-state signature gatherers lying to voters in order to get their votes — also not what Hiram Johnson had in mind) and to apply them to the recall effort now in process may be overdue, but are completely justified.
If they can win a recall against Newman a year from now, their entitled to that victory. They’would still negate over half of his term. But they have no right to assure that such an election hovers in the low turnout range — seen often recently in Los Angeles — that they clearly think that they need to win.
OK, Ryan, you have the floor without me for as much as 16+ hours! Enjoy it!
You suggest the governing majority has the right to limit how and when the minority expresses their rights.
I believe that argument has consistently fallen on the wrong side of history.
Codswallop, Ryan.
In November 2016 general election, Josh Newman received 160,230 votes out of 317,962 cast.
In the June 2014 primary election, no race in SD-29 was held. But, 46,131 votes were cast in AD-55, which is 54.14% of the 85,208 votes cast in November. In neighboring AD-65, 77,580 votes were cast in November, but the primary was uncontested so it doesn’t provide a good estimate. Instead, let’s apply that 54.14% discount for the primary, which yields an estimate of 42,001. While these two districts don’t entirely overlap with SD-29, it’s close enough for a rough estimate that 88.132 would have voted in SC-29 had their been a primary in that non-Presidential year. Let’s make that our estimate for 2018 as well.
So, then — if the election is held in June 2018, the recall process would allow an electorate of 88.132 or so voters to overturn the previous decision of 317,962 voters, 160,230 of whom supported Newman. That’s not great, but it’s within the bounds of reason.
But in a special election held around December, what turnout could we expect? 30,000? 20,000? Frankly, proponents HOPE that it is that low, because that low turnout — which would likely skew heavily Republican, which is WHAT THEY ARE COUNTING ON — is likely to give them the best chance to win, considerably better than in June 2018.
So let’s forego the piety, Ryan. They’re trying to GAME the system by working for the timing of the election when the FEWEST people will come out — and they have no constitutional right to do THAT.
Complaining that they invested all this money and now they can’t get the unfair advantage that they wanted is ridiculous. It’s like arguing to protect the interest of someone who bought a potion that was supposed to make them invisible so that they could burgle a house, but the potion didn’t work. Too bad.
In this case, they had no interest *vested in the State Constitution* in the timeline for credentialing being as short as it has been. It could also be changed — and, given the abuse of the recall process by special interests simply wanting to game the system, I’d say it SHOULD have be changed long ago. But changing it now — with immediate effect, given the purely political motivation of this recall and the slimy way it has been represented to voters — will have to do.
Now I DO think that this law could be improved, because it doesn’t address the situation in which a political figure needs to be removed from office for reasons of clear corruption, as with Leland Yee or Ron Calderon. In those cases, there should probably be an “urgency” version of the recall — perhaps with court confirmation as to the seriousness of the charge — that would require a higher turnout and a higher threshold of the vote. (It would thus necessarily be the sort of even larger public spanking that a politician like Ron Calderon would have wanted even more to avoid.)
I think that it would make sense to consider such an additional path to a truly *righteous* recall, And do you know what politician would be most likely to consider such a proposal, one that distinguishes between recalls based on corruption from those based on mere political gamesmanship?
Yeah, that’s right: Josh Newman.
Greg,
Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah, blahdie blah.
This is simple. The People have a right to recall whomever, whenever, for whatever.
Your party thinks the people are too stupid to exercise their rights, so your party changed the rules to keep the masses under control.
Why run on the issues and trust the people’s judgement when you don’t have to? Overrule the Constitution with a budget trailer bill and all will be well!
You’re supposed to be the party that protects the rights of the people before the rights of the powerful. Ya’ll did a bang up job with that this week.
I realize that you have a role to play here, and that you’re duly playing it, but as your friend and generally admirer I consider this comment to be beneath you.
If we were having a countywide recall and my party set up only one polling station, open for perhaps a month, that was located in the middle of the spot in the county with the most gang activity and least effective police presence, and that people would have to walk (or be pushed on a wheelchair) to there from the point of closest automotive access, without accompaniment, and wait in line for perhaps three hours to vote — then I think that the Republican Party would be entirely justified in setting up a system when they KNEW that a lot of Democrats would vote and knew that a lot of Republicans would not dare do so, even though they nominally had that right.
You’ve tried to set up a system here where Republicans will be far more likely to vote that Democrats — something that we only know from many decades of experience with voting and ON WHICH YOU PROPONENTS ARE EXPLICITLY COUNTING.
Enough of your attempted dishonest engineering of the electorate: the California Constitution does not entitle you to do so. You can pretend that my words sound like those of Charlie Brown’s teacher all you want — others here will be able to read and understand them, and will know that you actually can as well.
What role is that exactly?
All I can think of is conservative Republican who writes for the Orange Juice. Seems insulting to call it playing a role though.
The role is: “a more-or-less-even-if-reluctant proponent of the recall campaign.” (I agree that the description you suggest would be insulting, but it’s not my intent. Ryan does not seem to be going through the motions here; his heart seems to be in it.)
If you made this about opposition to the gas tax, Ryan, I’d just shrug and say that I’ve lost more in car repairs due to bad streets than this would impose upon me. But you’re actually making the argument that because these bastards came up with a way to game the system to get a smaller and more red-slanted electorate, we have an obligation to the Constitution to allow them to do it.
No we don’t. Adopting a more strenuous credentialing procedure does no violence to any of the constitutional provisions that you cited. It’s simply a matter of whether Democrats have to let them get away with murder — taking advantage of desperate gig workers and getting them to lie so that we can have a nice small red-tinted electorate — or whether we don’t. We don’t. Making common cause with these knaves’ drive to distort the electorate is not right — and it’s certainly not up to your own good personal standards.
Of course it does. You even admitted it.
The CA Constitution has specific provisions to allow the people to remove an elected official from office expediently.
Your quote below. Your party deprived the people of their right to address this finding of fact. It’s wrong, selfish, and should be widely condemned.
“Now I DO think that this law could be improved, because it doesn’t address the situation in which a political figure needs to be removed from office for reasons of clear corruption
Then let the test case — and basis for a new law be one where there IS a need to remove a CORRUPT official expeditiously. (And please — don’t argue that his gas tax vote is “corruption.” I don’t expect that you were about to.)
But look, *this* law is now water ovee the bridge. It has passed and the Governor will sign it. Let’s you and I draft a joint letter to Josh saying that we think that this new law needs a fix along the lines that we have proposed.
But I’d even go further than personal illegality: I’d say that there should be an expedited procedure for instances of gross malfeasance in covering up others’ official wrongdoing — such as that at issue in the Fullerton recall, which I supported for two of the three (if memory serves), in cases where there are no alkegations (unlike here) of improper means being used to induce votes.
I would bet that Josh would consider bringing forth such a bill.
No, your fix is not Constitutional. Sufficiency of reason is NOT reviewable. You want to make it reviewable.
If you or the Democrats want to change the Constitution and the People’s right to recall, then follow the process to do so.
Sticking it in a budget trailer is not following the process.
If there were two or three “tracks” of recall that proponents could decide to take, with different requirements to which they would be held, then their *right* to a recall would not be reviewed. Only the lower thresholds, etc., to which they would be entitled under certain circumstances might be reviewed. Statutory interpretation is harder than you think, Ryan.
No one is changing the Constitution here. The Constitution says that they have the right to a recall. They have a certain number of days to get signatures. Once signatures are verified, the election must happen within a set number of days. But IN BETWEEN THOSE is the certification process, about the specific duration of which the Constitution is silent. That means that it’s to be handled by statute. And golly, that’s just what has happened!
They have no constitutional right — especially when they’re lying to get people to sign the petitions — to have the election at the date that will yield the lowest possible turnout. None.
If you’re upset about budget trailer bills, then you can add this to the huge pile of legislative sharp dealing atrocities over the past several decades. It probably belongs about a third of the way up from the bottom, at worst.
If you’re thinking these arguments up yourself, as I am, that’s pretty good. If you’re consulting with anyone else in touch with a lawyer on the proponents side, and thus revealing the arguments that they would likely bring up in response to certain arguments that might be made in any case — then all I can say is: KEEP GOING!
Stop ducking.
It’s right there, black and white. Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable.
Your tracks provide different avenues according to sufficiency of reason, which applies superiority to reason A (fast track) to reason B or C. That’s expressly forbidden.
Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable means sufficiency of reason is not reviewable.
You probably think that “time, place, and manner” restrictions on speech are impossible because the Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law abridging” freedom of speech. And yet … they exist!
A system that set up multiple tracks that proponents could elect based on the severity of the offense, with *the appropriateness of the placement* able to be challenged in court, would not necessarily be considered “reviewing the sufficiency of reason” for a recall, so long as reasonable rules existed for a recall that was *not* “given a break” due to an indictment, conviction, gross negligence (as in the Fullerton recall) etc. I’m not saying that it would *necessarily* work — I mean, the Supreme Court just got rid of recess appointments after long years of use, so you can never tell — but my bet is that such a legislative plan would not be rejected on “unreviewability” grounds.
Look, my friend, I know more about the curlicues of appellate law than you do. And, if you’re being advised by an attorney somewhere, I probably know more about it than THEY do. But hey, by all means, bring such a challenge to court if you want to! I’ll happily advise the lawyers for my side for free, as usual, right here.
No, no Greg. This is about the plain reading of a specific provision in the California Constitution. This isn’t in any world comparable to the nuances of free speech and the Federal 1st Amendment. You know it, I know it, so let’s not be ridiculous.
This is an enumerated right. The purpose of this post is to highlight that good government enables an individual to exercise her rights freely. A bad government does the opposite.
Your argument supposes as a premise that the right of recall conflicts with some greater right of the majority. This is the same attitude that brought us the Alien and Sedition Acts. I stand by my claim that your reasoning lands on the wrong side of history. I mean it.
Recall does not conflict with anything. It serves as a check to assure the people’s ultimate sovereignty is never superceded by those put in power.
You support those in power. I get it.
You have a better education. I get that, too.
Neither makes you right.
I’ll be very brief.
(1) Freedom of speech is also an enumerated right.
(2) The issue at hand is not the right to a recall, but the right to have a recall with the smallest possible (and therefore most biased) electorate. You keep on not confronting that.
(3) From what I can tell, you must have had a wonderful education. I’m not trying to lord my degrees over you. I’m just noting that I have studied appellate law, some in law school, some as a poli sci professor, extensively as an appellate clerk, and regularly in practice, and I base my opinion on what I’ve seen courts have allowed legislators to do. Again, we’ll likely find out who’s right.
(Sadly, that IS me being brief.)
1) Not contested; however you’ll have to concede the specifics relating to the recall are much more detailed as an enumeration than the 1st Amendment
2) FALSE. Timing for a recall is also an enumerated right. You’re ignoring that and materially and fundamentally constraining our right to recall as a result. A recall delayed is a recall denied. The Constitution is specific.
3) Yes, you are, and I conceded the superiority if your credentials.
Interesting, Sharon Quirk-Silva voted against it … and Josh Newman, understandably, abstained. Apart from that it was predictably partisan.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB96
“Government is supposed to provide its people with three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Wrongo Bucko! Those are Unalienable Rights elucidated in the Declaration of Independence that are Aspirational concepts – with the reasoning that Governments are created to achieve those goals. As someone once said: “Too bad people are too social…..” You can have Bad Government….as we have now. Or you can have Good Government which helps achieve those noble ideals. In the Declaration, which everyone should have a copy of handy….it says: When Government becomes Destructive of those ends,,”it is the right of people to alter or abolish it”. The Declaration goes on to say that “changing Government requires a long list of insufferable wrong doings”, before these actions should be taken. We can say that in a mere 160 days…….of the current Government…..we have a very long list of “insufferables” which point to not assisting in helping us achieve: Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness”. When it comes to Duplicity….everyone should be wacthing the Showtime Four Part Oliver Stone Documentary Dialogue with Vlade Putin and how you can speak out of both sides of your mouth, Agree and Disagree all at the same time.
Let’s just say….Putin wants Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all his own Oligarchs….everyone else pays retail. The Russians don’t have an Initiative or Recall Process…..they have Assassination and Incarceration. Big Difference…..so, we need to watch our backsides…..or soon we could be following the Russian concept in greater detail.
So I suppose that Democrats should just sit back while the Republicans do their best to cynically overturn the results of an election held mere months ago. The point of a recall election is so that voters have an opportunity to remove officials for gross malfeasance. Not to try to force a new election every time someone casts a particular vote that may be unpopular. Down that road lies chaos.
The US Constitution mandates that each state provide its citizens a republican form of government. That means that we send representatives to Sacramento and they vote on issues for the duration of their term. Californians have the tool of a recall as a remedy for dealing with rogue legislators, or those who’ve disgraced their office. It is not intended to be used as a direct democratic workaround of republican government.
Frankly, the majority of citizens are disengaged from state politics. Which leaves them susceptible to dishonest manipulation. And make no mistake that is what’s happening here. I’ve seen these paid signature gatherers. They are selling the lie that signing their petition would “stop the gas tax.” It won’t. That ship has sailed. Ask them any sort of follow up question and they stutter around before coming back around to “uh, uh, stop the gas tax!” They have no idea what they’re doing, other than that some rich sugar daddy will pay them by the signature.
And there’s only one target of this recall. Why not others? After all, it wasn’t like Sen. Newman was the only one who voted for this. Couldn’t have anything to do with Republicans desperately casting about for a way to deny the Democrats a supermajority, could it? And the recall itself wasn’t launched by local residents but by a San Diego Republican.
So don’t pretend that the big bad Dems are sullying the good and pure recall process. What they’re doing is adding safeguards to the process the prevents a perpetuation of recall elections every time someone doesn’t like the outcome of a particular vote. They’re taking aim at those who want to overturn the will of the people by using cynical and deceitful tactics, and attempting to force an election on their terms when it seems more favorable to them at great expense to the taxpayers. Which seems an ironic way to show outrage regarding taxes.
What’s funny to me is how Mr. DeMaio, reacting to Josh’s legal challenges, calls Josh a “bully.” A mere month ago, Josh was “the weakest gazelle.” Which is it, weak gazelle or bully? And who is the snowflake here?
Of gazelle bullies, DeMaio considered him the weakest. QED.
Interesting that your claim the right of recall is limited to addressing malfeasance.
Assuming for a moment that’s true, how does making the recall process more onerous improve our ability to recall a malfeasant officer?
Why should I have to wait two years to recall a person who doesn’t belong in office?
A few years ago three Fullerton Councilmen were recalled because of how they responded to a constituent being beaten to death by local police officers. The recall qualifed and by a near 2:1 margin those three Councilmen were removed from office.
According to you, this recall lacked safeguards and shouldn’t have ever happened. Instead it should have taken months to verify and reverify. In that interim, that majority wouldn’t have been recalled and would have been responsible for implementing police reforms including hiring a new Chief of Police . . . All while, as demonstrated by the actual vote, having lost the mandate to govern.
The situation you advocate is unconscionable.
In the end, your argument rests it’s laurels on what you perceive as a just end. It ignores the means of obstructing clearly enumerated Constitutional rights.
I object to the means the Democrats used to deprive my neighbors of their rights. It’s wrong. And I respectfully disagree with your opinion on what constitutes a just end. That opinion deserves a resolution via a ballot box and not through a shitty budget trailer with no more than a token of discussion.
Consider, for a moment, if the shoe were on the other foot. An entirely predictable cast of characters (identity fetishists et al.) would be positively apoplectic.
It feels like something Mitch McConnell would do. Or the Anaheim Klepto majority of 2012-16. Which makes me feel dirty.
*The Great RC may have misread “the greater intent of the recall process”. A California Governor or two has been recalled because their actions were either so obviously criminal or obviously incompetent. The speed of the recall process in these cases can occur rather quickly. Dan White for example in San Francisco. The people like that in the City of Bell – Mayor Rizzo comes to mind. These cases usually have occurred over a long period of time, but some event suddenly unleashes the truth of the matter. When that happens…..as you point out in the Kelly Thomas Affair…..it was very obvious that nothing was going to change with precipitous action. In all of these cases, Resignation is still preferable to Recall. 50 years ago, most people caught with their hands in the cookie jar….resigned immediately. They couldn’t show up at church and not be stoned. Those in the south were unceremoniously “tarred and feathered” either by elements of the KKK or just outraged citizenry. Our current President displays the latest iteration of “Supreme Stonewalling and Blatant Denial”. We are sure that we will have to eventually drag him out of the Oval Office…..kicking and screaming. More and more politicians of his ilk are choosing this method of refusing to resign. Sadly, outraged voters many times cannot control their anger, as is being seen at a variety of so called “Town Hall Meetings”. They still don’t seem to grasp the message that their behavior is unseemly at best and outrageously dictatorial at worst.
Political Regulations and Procedures, Phony and Bad Taxes and Acts of wanton criminality are all good grist for Recall Petitions. Recently, a proposed 23 story building in Fashion Island was thwarted by qualifying a vote of the people on the subject. The building was withdrawn. All we are saying is that Recall must not be something abused or used primarily as the first tool of Government. It should be used when the citizenry become outraged by the acts of certain politicians or groups which endanger the general health and safety of the populace. At least that is what we would hope!
Democrats in Fontana want to recall their mayor because she loves warehouses and they cause too much pollution for residents, it should be fair for Republicans to do the same with Newman with taxes.
Maybe we could increase the font size for petitions so people would know what they are really signing. instead of 10 or 12 point font, it would be 18 or 24 point font to say Recall Petition or Petition to abolish the Board of Equalization etc.
That would be a reasonable improvement to the qualification process.
Latest recall-related tempest in a teapot, amplified on the Kleptoblog as well as anonymous FibOC comments, is video of my good friend Jeff LeTourneau “HARASSING A GAY REPUBLICAN VOLUNTEER”, out in front of the giant Walmart on Orangethorpe.
Turns out once you look into it, it was NOT “a gay Republican volunteer.” It was the recall organizer and mastermind CARL DE MAIO and his husband, from San Diego, butting into our district, and (according to Jeff) telling people that “the gay community” supports the recall. And Jeff knew exactly who they were.
Jeff rightly chews the duo out for the frequent lies that signing the petition will reverse the gas tax, and he also excoriates them for pretending to represent “the gay community” while attempting to remove a senator friendly to the gay community’s goals who will be almost certainly replaced by a senator that is not. So now Jeff is the big scary bad guy.
Snowflakes.
You might as well see it here, although Jeff admits he went a little overboard with his rage and intends to apologize to the Party:
Vern, this rant isn’t defensible.
I’ll be condemning it in part two. No one deserves to be spoken to like that and it is part of a pattern of behavior from Democrats in the past few weeks to intimidate their way to preserving their authority.
One need look no further than this attack and it’s direct extension to the Democratic California Chair’s race to understand exactly what’s on the agenda this year and next.
HEY BOYS! Guess who’s on Meet the Press tomorrow morning at 8? Josh and Carl Dr Maio! Headin’ for a showdown… DO NOT MISS!
Happy Father’s Day to Josh!
CORRECTION I WAS TOLD WRONG –
It’s a local news show on NBC, at 9AM, called NBC4 News Conference! Good, we don’t need Chuck Todd messin’ around here. (To the tune of Sweet Alabama)
Is it true that Carl DeMaio’s nickname is “Stinko”?
I keep asking you not to engage in the politics of personal destruction. But yes.
You do? Man, I guess I should pay better attention.