Inaugural Observations – No Longer The Enemy

Say what you will about the Obama administration in these early days, it certainly is nice to once again have a friend in the Oval Office.

From suing California over power-plant emission’s rules; to ordering FERC to withhold critical data that would have helped California recoup billions stolen by energy-traders who gamed our electricity system; to reversing 30 years of stricter emission standards, Bu$hCo made it a personal mission to f*ck this state. And why? Because our 55 electoral votes were never in play. No amount of campaigning was going to swing a state, that hasn’t voted Republican since Bush’s father ran against Michael Dukakas, to the Republican column.

Hell, even as he was leaving office, Bush felt it necessary to deliver one final “F*CK YOU!” in the form of a rule that would have opened 10’s of thousands of square miles of California coast to offshore oil drilling. Never mind that Californians have been of one mind on this issue for decades. Never mind that the Obama administration would likely reverse the order. Never mind that the amount of oil we’re talking about is a proverbial ‘drop in the barrel’ of our energy dependence. That’s not relevant for a President that didn’t have a problem with turning the residents of his most populous state, a state with an economy bigger than most nations, into his personal nemesis.

6 thoughts on “Inaugural Observations – No Longer The Enemy”

  1. I hope your friend in the Oval Office doesn’t turn out to be Bush-Lite, Kvatch.

    There’ll be a lot of disappointed people both in America and right across the world.

    Of course, ‘disappointing’ is a word that has become synonymous with the States over quite a few decades.

    It really has lost the plot!

  2. I hope your friend in the Oval Office doesn’t turn out to be Bush-Lite, Kvatch.

    Well obviously David, I’m speaking with a bit of irony. No one is more concerned than I, as I think I expressed here.

  3. I was so happy to hear about Obama’s decision to reverse Bush’s orders to regarding emissions. I agree that Bush seemed to have bulls eyed california for ruin for the obvious reason you pointed out. But in reality it was part and parcel of the head in the sand reaction of republicans to all things environmental. Business must always come first alas. I have great hopes that things will change now.

  4. The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

  5. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

    The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  6. Simple; you tell them you do 12,000 miles a year and they price the policy at 12,000 miles of high risk. Put your mother on there as a second driver and they assume she will do 3,000 miles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *