Kyle Hammans Republican 22,808 22.7
Kelley L. Ross Libertarian 7,093 7.0
* Bob Hertzberg Democrat 70,463 70.3
Not much has changed here from previous elections except that the Democrats get increased majorities. Hertzberg went to 59% in 1996 to 68.8% in 1998 and now to 70.3%. The LA Times seems to be correct in this respect, that California is drifting to the Left. Hopefully they will be sufficiently emboldened to go ahead and turn the State into Cuba, then, when the economy tanks, people will think better of this. As it is, this seems to be a continuing trend from the 90's, that the electorate gets drawn back more and more strongly to the failed devices of socialism. I actually got a few more votes than in 1996, but the total as a percentage has declined.
Our Excellent 2000 Candidates for President and Vice-President:
 HARRY BROWNE for President |
|
 ART OLIVIER for Vice President |
  Campaign Materials
| ||
As in the 1996 election, Harry Browne has proven to be "President of the Internet." Thus, an MSNBC straw poll on October 10 produced these results: Browne 61%, Bush 28%, Gore 7%, Phillips 2%, Buchanan 1%, Nader 1%, Hagelin 0%, McReynolds 0% (out of 6,241 votes cast; see below for affiliations for each candidate).
|
|
Lycos.com has a Presidential Poll. Its results as of October 19 can be seen at right, and the results just a day later are at left. Harry was somewhat behind Bush at first, though even with Gore, until, apparently, word went out to Libertarians (like me). Now Harry is well ahead. It is curious how the results for Bush, Nader, and Buchanan are similar to results in national polls, while those for Harry and Gore vary greatly. This might comfort the Republicans who fear that Libertarian votes come from Republicans (not me, man). We have a very large sample here, over 10,000 votes on the 19th, over 20,000 on the 20th. This doesn't prove anything about the electorate in general, of course, but it definitely does show the Liberatarian bent of the Internet.
1. Al Gore Democrat 49,274,146 48.276% 2. George W. Bush Republican 49,055,760 48.063% [wins!] 3. Ralph Nader Green 2,703,869 2.649% Total of Top Three (>lM votes): 101,033,775 98.988%
4. Pat Buchanan Reform 438,487 0.430% 5. Harry Browne Libertarian 375,024 0.367% Total of Next Two (>100K votes): 813,511 0.797%
6. Howard Phillips Constitution 99,634 0.098% 7. John Samuel Hagelin Natural Law 88,007 0.086% 8. James Harris Socialist Workers 10,711 0.010% Total of Next Three (>10K votes): 198,352 0.194%
9. Neil Smith Libertarian (AZ) 5,195 0.005% 10. Monica Moorehead Workers World 4,307 0.004% 11. David McReynolds Socialist 3,940 0.004% 12. none of the above 3,315 0.003% 13. Kathy Brown 1,636 0.002% 14. Dennis Lane Grassroots 1,052 0.001% 15. Louie Youngkeit 739 0.001% 16. Randall Venson 547 0.001% 17. Earl F. Dodge Prohibition 207 0.000% Total of Text Nine (<10K votes): 20,938 0.021%
Grand Total: 102,066,576 100.000%
While Al Gore won the popular vote, George W. Bush won the election on Electoral Votes. This has not happened since Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election in 1888, though Richard Nixon may actually have won the popular vote in 1960 -- and may have won the election was well, if not for election fraud in Chicago and Texas. Winning the election with Electoral Votes requires taking a large number of small population States. This is what happened, with Bush winning 29 States to Gore's 19. The geographical extent of Bush's victory can be vividly seen in the map of the counties he won, 2,436 as against only 677 for Gore. Although Bush lost the popular vote, the population of the counties he won is greater (143 million) than of those he lost (127 million).
Even in California, which Bush lost by 300,000 votes, the rural areas (and urban San Diego County) were overwhelmingly in his favor. In other areas of the country, the rural vote, except where strongly black, Hispanic (except Cuban), or American Indian, was Republican. Another striking thing about this election is that States with good economic growth were strong for Bush, while States with poor growth were strong for Gore. States with middling growth were the toss-ups. States with poor growth are dominated by Democratic welfare politics -- with people who are dependent on the government either for actual jobs or for public benefits, and who are hostile to business and capital, even apart from imposing high taxes. There is considerable sad irony in this, since those who are doing poorly end up just wanting more of the same -- apparently so that they can remain poor and dependent. This is particularly sad in that the black vote was even more solidly Democratic than in previous elections. Promises of handouts and preferences still work. They also work very well with the Hispanic vote, even though the social agenda of the Democrats, like promoting gay rights and abortion, are not agreeable to the conservative Catholics who dominate Hispanic communities. Black and Hispanics have simply come to see Republicans as personally hostile to them. This perception of hostility simply seems largely due to the expectation, whether actually expressed by Republicans or not, that Republicans are going to leave them on their own and not give them special treatment or handouts. It is a sad thing, indeed, when this is seen as hostility rather than just the proper attitude in a free society. The Democrats, of course, play on this with the contention that nobody succeeds without preferences and handouts, i.e. "privilege." It is really very frightening that the county is about evenly divided, population-wise, between those who fall for this and those who don't.
The ability of Bush to win is relevant to the issues discussed in "Alpine County and Equal Representation."
Previous notes on the campaign are as follows:
Al Gore, the central-planning, car-consumer-&-suburb-hating, tree-hugging, and (appropriately) wooden Vice-President, was the Democratic candidate. Stumbling for a while, he soon comfortably overcame Bill Bradley. Bradley, a former basketball player and Senator, and a stolid sort of Mario Cuomo New Dealer, was Gore's most serious opposition. Protectionist, Populist Representative Richard Gephardt, although widely expected to run, bowed out. From the lunatic fringe of Hollywood Leftism, actor and frustrated socialist Warren Beatty, fresh from a ridiculous political movie (Bullworth), was threatening to contend against the colorless Democrat field but then vanished. While commentators used to see Dan Quail as reflecting the essential shallowness of President Bush, it is now clear that Gore reflected the basic mendacity of President Clinton. Thus Gore, who advocated higher energy prices for years as a means of reducing energy consumption, now was suddenly the born again Populist when it came to blaming oil companies and OPEC for high gas prices, even after he read the report from his own administration that the EPA had contributed to higher prices with its own mandates. It would have been a day of shame for America, as it already has been over Clinton, should Gore have gotten elected. Gore was running against "the Powerful," without noting that he and his statist friends are among the most powerful.After winning resounding reelection as Governor of Texas in 1998, George W. Bush, son of former President (G.H.W.) Bush, was the Republican candidate. His worst problem at first seemed to be questions about his probable cocaine use in the '70's (questions by reporters who certainly used it themselves, and who have never asked Bill Clinton about the many reports of his use -- though certainly no one expects Clinton to truthfully answer such questions). Then, however, Bush's candidacy was seriously threatened by Senator and former prisoner-of-war John McCain, who won big in the New Hampshire Primary and also won in Michigan and Arizona. McCain, with his background, could probably have eaten Al Gore alive, but he chose to make "campaign finance reform" and the "Establishment" his major issue. Since previous such "reform" has proven to be an effective means of crippling challengers to entrenched politicians -- a "full employment" bill for incumbents -- McCain threw his lot with big government Democrats and the professional politician "moderate" Republicans. And if anyone has been part of the "Establishment," it is more McCain, who was one of the Keating Five, than George W. Bush. But these issues were not winners with Republicans, and McCain's successes were largely due to Democrat and Independent crossover voters. Whether they were sincere or mostly spoilers is still a good question. Elizabeth Dole, wife of 1996 Republican candidate Bob Dole, was a candidate herself -- burdened by her statist, bureaucratic background, never having held elective office -- but dropped out. Also dropping out was millionaire publisher Steve Forbes. Although no more than a quixotic candidate, and gratuitously appealing to the Right as a pro-lifer and drug-warrior, Forbes was the only person in either major party with an actual understanding of economics. The remaining challenger to Bush and McCain was former ambassador and talk-show-host Alan Keyes, running mainly against abortion, the income tax, and moral corruption (i.e. Bill Clinton). Keyes is a compelling speaker and represents the sort of socially and religiously conservative blacks who some day could cross over to the Republicans in some numbers (but not yet). Bush himself has pursued his "Democrat lite" version of Republicanism, promoting "compassionate" social programs and dropping items from the Republican platform like abolishing the Department of [Mis]Education. The question about this strategy was whether it would attract more moderate swing voters than it turned off conservatives and libertarians. Such a race as this was bound to be close anyway, but the leads that Gore had, and the closeness of the final vote, raise doubts about Bush's strategy. In any case, the "two party" choice facing the voters was a Gore and Bush (or Bore and Gush) that no self-respecting American should ever dream of voting for. The Third Party scene was mainly Ralph Nader for the Greens, Pat Buchanan for a hijacked Reform Party, and Harry Browne, the Jeffersonian choice as a Libertarian. Although Browne was in a horserace with Buchanan, around 1% of the electorate nationally (both actually got 0.4/0.3%), the Libertarian Party was still largely shut out from national media attention. Almost like there was a conspiracy....
Here is a group picture of most of the year 2000 Libertarian Party candiates in the San Fernando Valley. All the candidates are: Kelley Ross, 40th Assembly District; Bruce Acker, 25th Congressional District; Charles Black, 23nd State Senate District; Bill Farley, 26th Congressional District; Phil Baron, 38th Assembly District; Colin Goldman, 41st Assembly District; Kit Maira, 39th Assembly District; and Juan Ros, 24th Congressional District.
| Score | Candidates | Party |
|---|---|---|
| 86% | Harry Browne | Libertarian |
| 62% | George W. Bush | Republican |
| 58% | Alan Keyes | Republican |
| 56% | John Hagelin | Natural Law, Reform |
| 50% | Howard Phillips | Taxpayers |
| 47% | Patrick J. (Pat) Buchanan | Reform |
| 40% | David McReynolds | Socialist |
| 28% | Ralph Nader | Green |
| 24% | Albert Gore Jr. | Democrat |
 | ||
The percentages by which candidates diverge from my answers say little about how. The percentages as distances, however, can be spead out on the Nolan Chart, unscientifically, in what seem like the likely directions to me. My suspicion is that Bush and Keyes should be more Conservative, and Buchanan more Authoritarian, but those are the numbers I have to work with. A Libertarian organization, like the Advocates for Self Government, would probably do a better job analyzing the full range of everyone's positions. Buchanan, as it happens, is in the lowest position for personal freedom, hard on the heels of Al Gore, and this seems reasonable. It also may be about right that Bush, Hagelin, and McReynolds have the best non-Libertarian personal freedom ratings.
I have no doubt that Gore and Nader are properly found in the Authoritarian quadrant, and am not entirely surprised that the self-described "socialist" is actually more liberal when it comes to personal freedom. I put John Hagelin, as the chosen one of the Guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (which is what the Natural Law Party is -- Hagelin himself, described on the national news as a "meditating physicist," teaches at the Maharishi International University, "Levitation U," in Iowa), right in the Center because I suspect that Natural Law positions on most things are as centrist as possible, since ordinary issues don't interest them as much as having everyone learn Transcendental Meditation (which they now called relaxation therapy). Hagelin, interestingly enough, is contesting the Reform Party nomination with Buchanan, and it looks like a nasty schism will be the result. I can only hope that this will really sink the Reform Party, which is already sunk low indeed when Buchanan must be countered by the Maharishi.
Buchanan, however, has cleverly countered the widespread impression of him as some kind of Nazi racist by chosing a black woman, Ezola Foster, to be his vice-presidential candidate. Although Foster, a long time conservative activist in California education, truly represents, like Alan Keyes, a real current of black, religious conservatism, people like her mostly irritate, even offend, the vast majority of black voters, who still think that Democrat welfare-statism is the road to success. This continuing lock step is one of the real tragedies of recent American politics, though, of course, black voters belong in the Libertarian Party, not with Pat Buchanan or any other conservative.
The prisons are filling up with non-violent drug offenders (largely minorities, who then get to learn how to be career criminals). Proposition 36 is not the ideal law, which would be drug legalization, but it is a step in the right direction. California NORML says of 36,
Modeled on Arizona's successful Proposition 200, Prop. 36 would allow most offenders charged with simple possession of drugs to opt for a diversion program instead of imprisonment. Criminal charges would be dismissed upon successful completion of the program. ["California NORML Reports," Vol.24#2 - August 2000]
Offenders charged with other crimes, or who had been charged with drug possession more than once previously, would not qualify. This still means that if a casual marijuana user refuses to be "diverted," or goes back to smoking marijuana and is arrested again, he still is going to get thrown in prison.
Evidently this is not good enough for actor Martin Sheen and the drug warriors. Martin wanted his son Charlie, I guess, thrown in prison. Charlie, on the other hand, had some domestic violence charges against him as well, so I don't think Prop. 36 would even have applied to him. But Father Sheen apparently wants to clobber those black and Hispanic kids. Prison must be good for them. Get 'em in chains. Some "liberal."
One bit of good news in the 2000 election. The voters have continued to affirm the principles of justice when it comes to the excesses of the drug laws. If only the vote elsewhere were as encouraging.
We get taxes limited, or get rid of them, and then local and State governments just reintroduce the new taxes, or the same taxes, and call them "fees." Proposition 37 redefines as taxes any compulsory fees enacted by State or local government. Not only that, but it requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature to approve such state fees and a majority or two-thirds vote of the local electorate for local fees. It also says that regulatory fees cannot exceed the cost of regulation -- an important point when governments like to tax one thing to get money to spend on something else that people might not want their taxes to go to.
It is hard to keep up with the tax-and-spend crowd of thieves and extortionists. Much more fundamental reform, of course, is needed, like a Libertarian legislature and governor, but this measure can help until then.
A victory for the tax-and-spend crowd. One hopes, indeed, that they will do their best to crush business in the State, so that it can go elsewhere and California can join North Korea in starvation.
The sick conspiracy of incompetence and tyranny between the teachers unions, the educrats, and the Democratic Party is scared stiff about vouchers, which would allow parents to send their children to whatever school they want. Ironically, vouchers are overwhelming supported by black parents, who know what their public (i.e. government) schools are like, but opposed by both white liberals, who love their power in government schools, and black "civil rights" leaders, who are keeping faith with their white liberal allies.
The lies and distortions from the "no on 38" crowd have already begun, with television ads from governor Gray Davis himself, who says that private voucher schools would not be "accountable to taxpayers" and could not be held to any standards, with uncertified teachers. The sad truth is that public schools cannot be held accountable to taxpayers, because they are ruled by unelected and unaccountable administrators and teachers, who buy political protection from Democrat politicians, like Davis. Davis is just protecting one of the bastions of the Democratic Party, which daily feeds Democrat and leftist propaganda to the children of California and which, through the teachers unions, feeds money and political organziation to the Democratic Party.
If private schools do not have "certified" teachers: GREAT! Teacher certification is a shame and a joke. It doesn't mean that teachers know a damn thing about what they are teaching. It just means that they have taken a bunch of politically correct, stupifyingly stupid education courses. The last thing you want is to have teachers with no other qualification than "certification" teaching your children. Education schools and courses are so lame that they attract some of the academically worst students. You are a lot better off at a private school, where they can hire someone with a degree in history, rather than a degree in education, to teach history.
Among the nastiest lies that you are likely to hear is that vouchers endanger the "separation of church and state," since some parents will want to send their children to religious schools. This is total nonsense, as the Supreme Court has affirmed, since education grants and scholarships, including the famous GI Bill after World War II, have always been used at private religious schools. Vouchers have nothing to do with church and state because the decision about which schools to use is left to the parents. The public policy is choice, not church. But too many of those who argue that this would violate the separation of church and state are simply dishonest. What they really believe is that parents, any parents, should not be allowed to send their children to religious schools. They are not in favor of parents including their children in the free exercise of religion. They want those children as hostages to the political propaganda that passes for teaching in the public schools -- propaganda which is, of course, general hostile to religion, and to parents.
Although the State Libertarian Party endorsed Proposition 38, many L/liberatarians are conflicted about vouchers, since the government would try to follow voucher money with government control. Even Harry Browne consistently argued against vouchers. Nevertheless, it is distressing that people are willing by so large a margin to commit people's children as hostages to the propoganda apparatus of the public schools. Clearly, the educrats and teachers unions are not seen for the self-interested rent-seekers that they are, let alone a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party -- though it California these days, that may be a recommendation rather than a shortcoming.
Free the children! Yes on 38!
This initiative has been aptly called "Son of 26," since it is simply a repeat of Proposition 26, which was fortunately, but narrowly, defeated back in March. What they want is to make it easier to pass bond measures. Now 2/3 vote is needed. Proposition 39 would lower that to 55%.
Nothing is easier to understand in American politics. Democrats and leftists love taxes and want more of them, so they can buy votes and reward friends. People employed by or dependent on the government (i.e. "at the public trough") also want higher taxes, so they can get more. The schools are in the same boat. That the schools and teachers have gotten more and more money over the years, while the quality of education has declined steeply, has never prevented the educrats, teachers union thugs, and Democrats from constantly whining that the schools are bad because they don't have enough money. But they are rarely confronted with the fact that the schools were a lot better when they only had about a third of what they get now -- and that the Catholic school system now is uniformly better, with only a fraction of what the public schools have. School systems with below average funding (e.g. Utah) often do much better than better funded ones, while a system with about the highest funding in the country, Washington D.C., has about the most dismal results.
We know why the schools are bad. Teachers, who in general are rather poorly educated themselves, would rather teach "self-esteem," ecology, "gender equity," and other political propoganda than hard subjects like mathematics or grammar. Geography is generally ignored, and when history is taught at all, it is taught as another form of political propaganda, ignoring fundamentals (like when the Civil War was) in favor of ethnic cheerleading and political mythology (e.g. the Greeks "stole" their knowledge from Ancient Egypt). All this is fully supported by education school educrats, who are not always ignorant themselves, but who fully share the leftist political purposes of the system.
What they all hope is that the voters, dumbed down by an education in the public schools, will continue to buy the deceptions and distortions of this selfish and greedy "public service" crowd. The television spots must already have set some kind of record for misleading and deceptive advocacy, never mentioning that it will be easier to pass bond issues and raise property taxes, but acting as though the proposition was designed by taxpayers to help them control school spending. Ha. One thing the ads really do is out the AARP, the "American Association of Retired Persons," which is clearly exposed as a front organization for the Democrat Party. Retired people don't have much interest in the schools, since their own children are generally through with them, but they are usually very concerned about property taxes, which, with homes paid for but with fixed incomes, the elderly may have trouble paying. Now the AARP conspicuously comes out supporting a measure that could raise property taxes for purposes that are peripheral to senior concerns. More than suspicious.
A heartbreaking loss for property owners, not to mention for truth and honesty. The "No on 39" campaign seemed poorly financed and was not able to compete with the cascade of lies and deceptions from the "Yes on 39" ads. Or, turning to socialism, the voters simply decided to nail the capitalist pig propertied classes.
Save the taxpayers! No on 39!
After California Indians overwhelmingly won the right to have gambling on their own lands, the result was set aside by a technicality -- the constitutional amendment setting up the California Lottery prohibited casino gambling in the State. So we have to do Proposition 5 over again, with 1A, which is a constitutional amendment.
California Indians again ran a slick, powerful campaign, and it looks like the Nevada casinos didn't even try very hard to beat it. I never did see a "No on 1A" ad. It may be that they decided early that it was hopeless and that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em: Even before the election the word was that some Indians had already contracted with the very same casinos to run their own operations. Good for them.
Conservatives are afraid that "gay" marriages are going to get approved in California. The marriage laws of California, however, already violate the separation of church and state, since they "establish" monogamy, which is a form of marriage preferred by some religions. Islâm allows limited polygamy, with separate households, but this would be a crime in California.
This whole business is none of the business of the State, but a matter of private contract and private beliefs. I don't care if homosexuals want to live together and call it "marriage." They can call it whatever they want. What they are often worried about is money, since medical benefits, etc., often are applied to family members. This is also a matter of private contract.
I also don't think that businesses should have to pay out benefits to gay spouses if they don't want to. That is a matter of negotiation between employees and businesses, not a matter of State mandate, any more than the marriage laws. I would oppose requiring businesses to do anything of the sort.
Considering the heat on the Hollywood Left against the Proposition 22 (with Rosie O'Donnell's famous "No on 22" at the Grammies), this interesting result perhaps reveals the distance of the radicalized cultural elite from the social conservatism of the majority of voters. 22 even won San Mateo County, breaking the leftist solidarity of the Bay Area.
Considering the passage of all the bond issues on the ballot, and the defeat of Proposition 28, one is left with the disturbing impression that a majority of voters are now the opposite of libertarian. Instead of "socially liberal and fiscally conservative," they are actually socially conservative and fiscally liberal, i.e. populists or authoritarians. The Democrats will thus get all the money they want to buy votes and pay off friends, while the Republicans can strike back occasionally on "moral" issues. This is not a good indication for the future.
What if they're all bums? With "None of the Above" on the ballot, we can throw them all out.
Unfortunately, this proposition is not binding. Even if it passes, the politicians can just ignore it.
Don't ask me what people think they are doing. Why they would not want "none of the above" seems to mean that they are content with the choice of politicians presented, which is frightening.
So-called "Campgain Finance Reform" is one of the nastiest tricks that professional politicians have ever put over on the voters. All it has done is to increase the rate by which incumbants are re-elected, since it is harder for challengers to raise money now. It has also enabled the bureaucrats to harrass citizens who try to participate in politics but who cannot afford the lawyers and accountants to keep track of all the campaign reporting requirements. Although I have raised NO MONEY in any of my campaigns, I have been threatened in each with with crushing fines just for not filing the "right" form with the right office -- no, no, the County Registrar cannot tell the State that the right forms have been filed there; you also have to file them all over again, in duplicate (don't they have a copier?) with the Secretary of State!
What they really want is campaigns financed with public money. That way they can pick and chose who gets to participate in politics. The American Nazi Party is certainly never going to get any public money for politics, and since they will be prohibited for spending their own, this will be an excellent way of prohibiting their political activity altogether. Few are going to weep for the American Nazi Party, but of course that will only be used to establish the precedent. Isn't the NRA a "hate" group, like the Nazis? Aren't a lot of Republicans really preaching "hate" and racism? Well, we can't have the taxpayers pay for them!
In truth, we already have a virtual one party state, in which the Republicans pretend to oppose the Democrats and they all get to share in the loot. To break this, we need more money in politics, not less.
Ron Unz, who should know better, really threw away his money on this one. Exactly why this lost is an issue that should be explored. Similarly bad "campaign finance reform" propositions have passed in the past. If voters were turned off, however, by public financing of campaigns, that would be a good sign.
Don't believe the ads that say that Proposition 26 is about reforming education. It is only about one thing: Raising taxes. The teachers' unions and educrats want more money. Not because it is necessary to improve education -- they have enough money for that already -- but just to continue feathering their own nests and buying more politicians. They waste the money they've got already: Even though the money spent on education has more than trippled since 1960, the quality has collapsed to the point where high school graduates often can't read and don't know anything about anything. What the educats call "education" is really political indoctrination. So students can't do the math, but they can parrot every environmentalist cliché in the book.
A very close call. The "Yes on 26" ads set a new standard of deceitfulness, talking about how "protected" the tax payers are going to be and never actually saying that the law would make it easier to pass bonds and so increase the property taxes to pay for them. They also exposed the true colors of the AARP, which was quoted as saying that 26 would be "good for the elderly and property owners," when, of course, it had nothing to do with the elderly and was a major threat to all property owners. The ads were so slick and maudlin (all those beaming children) that I am almost surprised they failed.
The "Meathead" initiative, Proposition 10, tragically passed, by a narrow margin, in 1998. Rob Reiner and other socialist Hollywood do-gooders want to take over child care and so cleverly targeted a reviled, despised minority, smokers, to milk them for money so they can continue the process of having the State rather than parents raise children.
Now we have the chance to fight back. But it is fashionable to hate smokers, drive them out of their own businesses into the street, and rip them off for money that is spent on things that the politicians can't get other taxpayers to pay for. Oh, of course the politicians say that tobacco taxes are to pay for the medical expenses that smokers impose of us, but that is a lie. By dying younger, smokers actually save us money. And, in any case, tobacco taxes would already pay for all kinds of extra expenses (they don't need to the "tobacco settlement" for that), and PROPOSITION TEN WAS NOT ABOUT TOBACCO EXPENSES! Proposition Ten was to get money for things that had nothing to do with tobacco. It was just a way of ripping off the 20-25% of the population who smoke.
So STOP IT!
The tobacco-Nazis and the "Meathead" are triumphant, after a campaign rivaling in deceitfulness the "Yes on 26" ads. Although Proposition 10 passed narrowly, 28 now loses big, with "No" votes not that much more than the percentage of actual smokers in the state.
So the voters are now perfectly willing to loot a despised minority in order to fund Rob Reiner's socialism. Well, people get the kind of government they deserve, and this will certainly encourage those who will next want to tax-to-destruction fat, salt, alcohol, egg yolks, red meat, junk food, perfume, and the other demons of the health-Nazis, while using the money to control parents and families.
A very sad confirmation of Jefferson's maxim that "They will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price," since the new Prop 10 bureaucracy was simply able to use its own Prop 10 revenues to pay for their lying and vicious "No on 28" campaign. They could even disguise these as "public service announcements." I am not sure what is worse, the rent-seeking do-gooders who now get to live off Proposition 10, or the voters who fall for this scam and, again, sell their birthright of freedom for a share in the loot of the welfare/health-Nazi state. When they finally realize they have become slaves, it may be too late.
And they thought Dan Quayle was stupid...
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." --Al Gore
"Democrats understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." -- Vice President Al Gore
"Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts." --Vice President Al Gore
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit ... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, & water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." --Vice President Al Gore, 8/11/94
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century." -- Vice President Al Gore, 9/15/95
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy -- but that could change." -- Vice President Al Gore, 5/22/98
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, & that one word is 'to be prepared'." -- Vice President Al Gore, 12/6/93
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." -- Vice President Al Gore, 11/30/96
"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." -- Vice President Al Gore
"The future will be better tomorrow." -- Vice President Al Gore
"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world." -- Vice President Al Gore, 9/21/97
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Vice President Al Gore
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." -- Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." -- Vice President Al Gore
"Public speaking is very easy." -- Vice President Al Gore to reporters in 10/95
"I am not part of the problem. I am a Democrat." -- Vice President Al Gore
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." -- Vice President Al Gore
"When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in L.A., my answer has been direct & simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame. -- Al Gore
"Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it." -- Vice President Al Gore, 5/20/96
"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." -- Vice President Al Gore, 9/22/97
"For NASA, space is still a high priority." -- Vice President Al Gore, 9/5/93
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children." -- Vice President Al Gore, 9/18/95
"The American people would not want to know of any misquotes that Al Gore may or may not make." -- Vice President Al Gore
"We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made." -- Vice President Al Gore
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." -- Vice President Al Gore
"[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." -- Vice President Al Gore
And, of course (to all users of the internet), the all time favorite quotation of Mr. Al Gore:
"As many of you know, I was very instrumental in the founding of the Internet" -- Al Gore to Katie Couric, 3/99