CA Voters Should “Recall” Why Prop 22 Was Abandoned

In 2003, California held a statewide circus known as the Gubernatorial Recall election. That election actually considered two questions … Yes or No, should their sitting Governor, Gray Davis, be recalled? … And, if Yes, who of the 154 candidates should replace him? The slate of candidates included Actors, a Lieutenant Governor, a State Senator, Business People, a Porn Star, a Comedian, etc., etc.

In the lead-up to this election, it seemed likely that Davis would be recalled. This gave the Republicans the opportunity to capture the Governorship of the nation’s most populous State from the Democrats. In my opinion, it was unnecessary emphasis on this that led the California Republican Party to make a tragic error. Dana Rohrabacher, the U.S. Congressman for the California District I lived in at the time, took the lead in the party’s effort to support Actor/Businessman Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was obvious that this endeavor was founded on Schwarzenegger’s popularity, making him most likely to garner the plurality of votes needed to be Davis’ replacement. It was just as obvious that, for the group led by Rohrabacher, the subject of “Who is the best Gubernatorial Candidate for the future of the State?” took a back seat to the issue of popularity. To many, the answer to the question of “Who is the best Gubernatorial Candidate for the future of the State?” was State Senator Tom McClintock. He seemed to be very clear on every issue, as it pertained to what was needed from a California Governor for the present and the future. However, he wasn’t widely known in the State and he is far from being a flashy politician. Of course, it’s impossible to say that, if Rohrabacher’s efforts had been invested in McClintock, he would have won and the Republicans would still have secured the California Governorship. As you know, Schwarzenegger became “The Governator”. However, since McClintock received more votes than any Republican besides Schwarzenegger, it seems quite feasible that, with the Rohrabacher group’s support, McClintock could have won the Governorship.

So, since that circus took place nearly five years ago, what’s its importance now? Especially, at a time when the political “hot topic” is the May 15, 2008 Headline - California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban - i.e. The overturn of California’s Year 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 which, by a vote of 61.4% in favor, prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Of course, there’s ongoing heated debate on this issue. I’m not writing to add to that fire. I will say that there are people who are dear to me on both sides of this matter and my prayer is that we all can keep our related discussions, no matter how inflamed, from singeing those treasured relationships. I’m not even writing to address the matter of seven unelected officials forsaking the will of 61.4% of the California Electorate … though that seems pretty obviously wrong to me. I’m writing to address the matter of choosing style over substance – i.e. in 2003; the California Electorate let themselves be led to choosing popularity over ability. The current political “hot topic” just helps to illuminate that folly and its result … You may end up with just what you asked for, a likable “leader” who isn’t able (or willing) to respond in a way that reflects the will of those he represents. Specifically, in a statement responding to this California Supreme Court ruling, Governor Schwarzenegger simply said that he respected the ruling and did not support a constitutional amendment to overturn it. By contrast, State Senator (and now, U.S. Congress Candidate) Tom McClintock said, "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a travesty of judicial activism and is based not on California law - which is crystal-clear - but on the social views of the individual justices. Fortunately, the initiative process allows voters the opportunity to overturn this ruling by adopting the Marriage Protection initiative this November," McClintock said. "I intend to do everything in my power to campaign for this initiative."

Certainly, the outcome of the 2003 California Recall Circus isn’t unique, in terms of a population choosing style over substance, leading to travesty. As with most things, the best example is in the Bible, when Israel demanded a King. They first chose Saul, described in 1 Samuel 9:2 as “… a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.” … He was a good-looking tall guy who was a disaster, as King. On the other hand, David, Israel's first great King, who God instructed Samuel to anoint to replace Saul, was initially not included with the sons of Jesse who Samuel was considering. He wasn’t even present … as the youngest and the least, he was the one assigned to be out in the field, shepherding the flock.

So, what can we learn from this? Obviously, though we were given the “choosing style over substance” lesson in Saul and David, thousands of years ago, in Israel, it seems we still haven’t fully learned that lesson. Hopefully, the voters of California are learning from the results of their having elected (and reelected) “The Governator”. But, I no longer live in California so I’ll leave that to present-day Californians. My hope is that we will apply this lesson to what lies before us, as a nation. In the current Presidential campaign, as in most political campaigns, there is much to consider, in terms of what is style and what is substance. I’m not going to tell you, here, which of the Presidential Candidates I see as having more substance. With this, I just want to encourage you to seriously consider the matter of “a population choosing style over substance, leading to travesty.”

We gotta keep callin' it what it is - BO-loney!!!!!!!

One aspect of the current Presidential Campaign Season has continued to cause Figgins and I to regularly cock our heads and look at each other with facial expressions that obviously say, "What the heck does that mean?!" This aspect is the passion-evoking, yet vacant, rhetoric of Barack Obama.

Actually, we touched on this subject in an earlier posting entitled The Better Angels of Our Nature?!?!?!?. Although that posting addressed Senator Ted Kennedy's old-style-politics approach to whip the crowd into a frenzy when he endorsed Obama (ironically, quoting the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln), the theme is the same ... words that evoke virtually overwhelming inspiration, but void of meaning in reality. Figgins and I have coined a word to use between us to sum this up. The word is ... BO-loney. One reason we chose this is because it incorporates the slang word "baloney", meaning "nonsense". The "BO" part is for two reasons ... (1) Of course, these are the initials of the one who has been uttering these empty phrases and (2) Like another meaning of "BO", this is nonsense that stinks.

In his most recent column in the Washington Post, The Audacity of Selling Hope, Charles Krauthammer addresses this matter more thoroughly than Figgins and I could possibly do. For us, his most ominous words are the ones in his closing paragraph:

"Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude."

The only words we can think to add to this and in fact, we feel compelled to add are: The best thing we conservatives can be doing for our country between now and November is to call it what it is ... BO-loney ... and to do so every time we see it!!!!!!!

Honest Politician

Figgins has had increasing opportunities,in recent days, to witness the cynical view that most seem to have of American politicians. This can be summed up by saying that it seems to be, generally, accepted that the description "Honest Politician" is an oxymoron.

Figgins has, also, been witnessing how very discouraging I find this. That aspect really peaked today when one Presidential Candidate announced a decision to not run a "negative ad" that his campaign had prepared. My discouragement comes from the fact that I haven't heard a single representative of the media express even the most vague possibility that what the candidate said was true ... that he had given further consideration to what he was about to do and he had come up with the courage of his convictions and decided not to do it. This particular candidate is an ordained Baptist minister. He teaches from The Scriptures, which say, "let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay" ... in other words, say what you mean and mean what you say. So why is there not even the slightest consideration from the media that this guy is doing just that?

One of the ironies in this is that the aforementioned "negative ad" was prepared as a response to a candidate who has been less than believable himself. As an example, he claimed that he had seen his Father, a former Governor of Michigan, march with Martin Luther King Junior. When confronted with the fact his Father had never participated in such a march, this other candidate said that he had only been speaking allegorically, that he knew his Father marched with King "in spirit". For some reason, the media didn't seem to greet this with the same level of cynicism they leveled towards today's "negative ad" decision but it did provide another example of why, generally, American politicians are deserving of the media's attitude.

So, maybe American politicians are getting what they deserve. They've, generally, proven that the description "Honest Politician" is an oxymoron. So, "Justice Served!" Right?! Well, what about us, Americans? Are we getting what we deserve? I have to say, "I think so." Its not been that long since we twice-elected an adulterous Presidential Candidate who dodged the culpability of his philandering by questioning the meaning of what the word "is" is. And yet, instead of mocking and rejection, many still regard him as a heroic figure. As a matter of fact, there's even the possibility that the next Presidential Election could result in a return to that same administration.

OK, so maybe we're getting what we deserve too. But I say, "It doesn't have to remain that way." When you think about it, we're actually getting what we are letting ourselves deserve. And, I say, "Let's change that!" Let's stop putting up with American politicians dodging the truth by letting them debate what the meaning of the word "is" is. Let's stop accepting allegory, as an excuse for not being genuine. And, by all means, let's continue to express skepticism about things like today's "negative ad" announcement, if it doesn't seem credible. But, shouldn't we, at least, allow the possibility of an American politician saying what they mean and meaning what they say? If we don't, what is their incentive to do so? Moreover, shouldn't we be demanding this of our politicians instead of just accepting that, in our nation, the description "Honest Politician" is an oxymoron. By doing so, I think we end up deserving better and by being better from getting what we deserve.