I was his biggest fan too....until he made JUNIOR

he'll be back.







right?

Oh god, I just felt a pang of sadness.

Only if he gets to the choppa, first.

Just voted earlier :)

lol, now we can say that we have a big Boehner heading the house

At the head of the Big Tent...

Is he gone? D:

Fuck yeah, it's Jerry Brown's time to shine!

Yep.. Gov. "Moonbeam's" returned.

My governor is a morbidly obese Republican who said he'd cut the budget and he did and now people hate him for doing what he said he would do.

Chris Christie?

The one and only :D

it's a little hard to tell if you are pro-christie or anti-christie

so in a nut shell, how do you feel about your governor ACTUALLY doing what he said he was gunna do?

I voted for him because I really disliked Corzine, and I thought Christie was the only one who could save New Jersey from itself. And he has. Even if its not in my best interest (like the higher ed budget cuts), I still thought about what was best for New Jersey and not for my own individual concerns.

I'm the opposite way about Scott Walker, the New Governor of Wisconsin

I voted for him because MY best interest happens to be Wisconsin's best interest as well
which is smaller, less costly government, lower taxes, and conceal and carry laws

I kinda assumed any governor of California was going to be shit.

Why is that? Schwarzenegger was very proactive, perhaps one of the best (if not effective) governor's we've had in a long time.

From an outsider's perspective, California looks like a politically backwards state. Like jesus, how many Amendments were there to the constitution? 200 something? Also, it's sorta funny to think of Arnold Schwarzenegger as a great politician/governor, but if it is so, then it is so.

I'm not saying that New Jersey is any better by any means. You have to be corrupt to do anything in New Jersey state government.

California did not wipe-out on the of anti-incumbent wave of conservatism. The propositions have led to some policy decisions that essentially lead the nation, including the high speed rail bond and the affirmed commitment to developing a post-carbon economy (by voting down prop 23).

Schwarzenegger was a fiscal conservative who recognized that nothing should be spared in the upkeep of infrastructure and the maintenance of California's environment despite its constructed ecologies.

He went after the port transfer trucking in Long Beach/LA Harbor, supported the improvement projects for LAX (Hahn fouled that up with his go-it-alone ideas).

He passed AB32, the nations only comprehensive pollution and climate change initiative; which, thus far, has produced some strange alliances and amazing entrpenurial projects.

He sought to pass legislation to fix the delta dike system, which threatens native species as well as homes and farms.

Very recently, he spoke about the need to invest in modifications to how the State Water Project uses water at a conference on the rim of the largest off-line reservoir in the country - which is at 12% capacity.

While it may have appeared that his tactics put many state-worker jobs by withholding pay, it was just that - a tactic. It successfully put the onus on state legislators to bear the responsibility of decision-making. This is why I find it interesting how much Schwarzenegger needed Chiang's obstinate refusal of orders in order to make his political posturing succeed.

In the last analysis, I find that he basically had very good intentions, and was a centrist conservative, with even a few peaks into the blue, mostly on environment - which I feel matters most.

That's thinking backwards buddy.

I guess you really love Cali Foxer.

The state faces serious challenges, but all things are contextual. I think what is good about California is that there is no fear in making wild proposals to the tough issues.

You know something is afoot when the LADWP (nation's largest municipal utility) proposes over 100 square miles of solar thermal energy generation. I think that proposal was misguided for specific reasons, but bold and forward looking. It also sets an example of government supported entities that can be as nimble as corporations -- and actually more profitable.

I didn't even know that that project even existed, or was proposed, but then again I live in New Jersey, so most anything that occurs in California I am unaware of. Wild proposals may be a good alternative, but I'm one of those people who fears the extremes of the political spectrum, as well as the ideas they have. Probably my college experiences involving socialists and the occasional libertarian don't help shape my views in a positive light.

If you are at all interested in some of my political ideas, I did post a journal about advice to the next congress. I'm probably wrong with a lot of advice (or obvious), but then again, I don't think Tea Partiers are aware of basically anything other than that they can't get jobs.

I can sympathize with the Tea Party/libertarian sentiment, but I don't buy it because it's really just focused conservatism clothed in a fresh set of promises.

There is little registration of the flows of power from the mobocracy (sorry, lol) until a neophyte spouts comfort-verbiage to get elected; this, however, runs against the possibility that the art of policy is in fact a profession itself. Just because you've read the chemistry book (read, Constitution), doesn't mean you'll be a successful doctor (read, able to negotiate the full bandwidth of professional duties). This is why I kinda like crusty and creepy incumbents.

BTW, this country isn't even close to socialist, and nobody in their right mind (liberal or conservative) wants to create a welfare state.

Hence why we need the Barney Franks and Nancy Pelosis of the world. But yeah, we are barely socialist. We have socialist programs of course, but then again pure democracy proved itself to also be ineffective (i.e. Railroad riots and factory conditions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries).

I also am fascinated by CA as a completely constructed environment. The state has a LOT of resources, but they are all moved around by huge projects that are largely under-appreciated. While things like the TVA are often touted as the success of a semi-socialist industrial project, the State Water Project was much larger in scale. The state is terraformed by any sense of the word.

Most of the US is gridded and reworked as an infrastructural plane, but in California, it was done with 60s political momentum, and late 70s technology - a kind of cyborg ecoloogy was created. This is neither good nor bad when you balance out the benefits and drawbacks for all stakeholders (including wildlife); however, the resiliency of these systems will now be tested in the coming decades. The environment will as well. It's a question more compelling than the Rustbelt (which gets most of the attention in urban design academia today).

And here I was thinking moving to California was a good idea :/

Only one that wasn't was Ronald Reagan.

Poor Maria. Now she might have to start paying off all those 'cell phone use while driving' tickets.

It's not a rumor? He won't be back? Does this mean I don't have to put the cookie down? :O Now?

... Heeheeyai. Clone movies. XD

I'm glad Whitman lost.

I was actually interested in her for a while. I always read the energy and environment platform, which tends to kill my support for conservatives.

My interest in them usually fades before I reach that part; their environmental stance merely confirms it all.

Mmmm, I love the fact California has a boehner for America.
xD

Actually, as much as I hate to say it, Boehner is from my home state, Ohio, not California.

So Ohio stuck it's Boehner in Californias open slot when Arnold pulled out. :D

But, Boehner has as much to do with California as the Atlantic Ocean does.

HASTA LA VISTA, AHNOLD.