Post Debate Wrap

I see (4.00 / 2)

Whitman continued the zombie lie that California loses tons of jobs to other states because of taxes and regulations. So, Meg, why didn't you move eBay to Texas? And where are the jobs you and your other buddy Perry insisted were coming to "low tax, low-regulation" Texas? No one around here is hiring? Care to show me who has come here and who is hiring? (We sure could use a little revenue to plug up our own $18-21 billion deficit.)

My blog


Twitter

---

by: cali_girl_in_texas @ Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 06:07:47 AM UTC

And all the news media... (0.00 / 0)

can talk about is the "whore" comment, and how the audience booed Brown's initial response.

:-|

---

by: BruinKid @ Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 17:15:12 PM UTC

That was a dicey moment, wasn't it? (0.00 / 0)

Brown made it clear that it wasn't he who said it, but apologized anyway. Meg should have accepted his apology graciously and and taken two points. Instead, she stepped outside the "victim" role and went for his jugular. The crowd didn't care for Brown's "Pete Wilson did it too" excuse, and she should have ended it there and taken two more points. But no, she pressed the issue again, and this time it deflated. She looked like she was exploiting it, and Brown gained six points.

---

by: jjohnjj @ Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 18:03:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, see... (0.00 / 0)

that's not how it was reported on MSNBC.  Yes.  Not Fox News.  MSNBC.  They only played the part where Jerry Brown got booed, and never showed the part where she was exploiting it.

I didn't see the debate, because I was attending a Prop. 19 debate at UCLA.  And frankly, a lot of us in Bruin Dems, after hearing what Mark Kleiman had to say about the pros and cons of Prop. 19, may end up voting No on 19.  I'm serious.

---

by: BruinKid @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 04:46:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Care to explain? (0.00 / 0)

Prop 19 - why not good?

---

by: sacrelicious @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 22:32:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Several points... (0.00 / 0)

First, the proposition does not allow the state to tax marijuana, but leaves it to local municipalities, of which Kleiman said there's over 480 in California.  And he said it would quickly become a "race to the bottom", where they'd simply all go to the place with the lowest tax rate.

Second, from the text of the proposition, check out this definition:

(5) "Residence" means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.

As Kleiman noted to a lot of chuckles in the audience, this definition is so broad, it would include a homeless person's cardboard box.

Third, Kleiman warned this law would still conflict with federal law.  He expounds on that here.

Fourth, one of the arguments we've seen is that it's good in terms of the drug war, because it would hurt the drug cartels.  Actually, Kleiman said this would only impact maybe 1-2% at most of the Mexican drug cartels' revenue.  So they either wouldn't really care, in which case it's business as usual, or if they're really greedy, get angry at losing that 1-2%.  And when drug cartels get angry, lots of innocent people end up dead.

Fifth, there's the commercialization factor here, where the companies that would spring up would be targeting people who have substance abuse problems, as is the case with everything else like cigarettes and alcohol.

Oh, and the woman who was there to represent the pro-19 side was, quite frankly, a very poor debater, would constantly answer with "I don't understand what you're saying", and tried to rebut one of Kleiman's criticisms about the for-profit nature, but ended up simply proving his point.  (I think she said something along the lines, "It's not for profit!  I defend clients who make a profit on selling marijuana!"  Yeah, lots of us did double takes at that.)

Anyway, that's just a few of the things I remember about the debate.

---

by: BruinKid @ Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:52:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some Notes (0.00 / 0)

I think we all knew that Federal Law would still conflict.  

As Kleiman noted to a lot of chuckles in the audience, this definition is so broad, it would include a homeless person's cardboard box.

So, you are saying that a homeless person shouldn't have domicile rights?  That bothers me -- people end up homeless for various reasons, but they are still people, deserving of rights and respect.

But, mainly, it also sounds like the debate did not feature a good proponent for Prop-19.  One wonders how someone more adept would have fared.

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 15:48:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I noticed that Brown kept looking at the audience instead of the camera. (4.00 / 1)

It really annoyed me at first. I've seen him do this before and it worried me that he just wasn't "media-savvy" enough to run a modern campaign.

Then I realized that the audience was becoming more expressive in his favor, and those of us watching at home were hearing this. Toward the end of the debate, all that eye contact with the audience paid off for him handsomely. That's what I call political skill.

---

by: jjohnjj @ Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 18:11:00 PM UTC

Texas (5.00 / 1)

The reason Texas has no income tax is because of its oil taxes. It subsidizes other industries at the expense of the oil industry, who doesn't have a choice and who simply passes the cost on to consumers.  The Economist finds this tremendously laudable and it is indeed an economic advantage to the Lone Star state. So, if you have a business that hires people without children (the educational system is not exactly great in Texas), don't mind serious pollution, and want lower taxes, locate there.

What does all this have to do with California? Nothing. Somebody should point out that the comparisons with Texas are absurd. It would make a good ad.

---

by: camilow @ Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 21:37:00 PM UTC

actually, it does have something to do with CA (5.00 / 2)

in that CA does not tax the oil industry, as texas does. we should, since they can't move out of state with the oil under our dirt.

---

by: wu ming @ Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 21:54:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

See also, Alaska (3.50 / 2)

Where the hardy, independent, real last frontiersmen are completely subsidized by taxes on the oil industry that would be decried as ruinous if implemented in California.

---

by: jsw @ Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 22:00:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Something else I thought of (0.00 / 0)

If rich people are really so great at creating jobs, then why didn't eMeg use some of her own wealth to create jobs? Some of that $140+ million could have been put to better use making jobs that we could use, in California or Texas or elsewhere.

My blog


Twitter

---

by: cali_girl_in_texas @ Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:53:48 AM UTC

She Did! ;-) (8.00 / 1)

http://www.markfiore.com/polit...

Well, a few jobs!  

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 15:32:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]