|
Parra booted out of Capitol office Early favorite for Best Political Fundraiser of 2008 Will the real baby daddy please stand up? Ad targets Danny Gilmore It's Edwards' fault that Hillary's not running for president Edwards admits affair, denies love-child Have the Clintons got over it? Paris Hilton strikes back at McCain ad Nicole Parra: No water, no budget vote Paris, Britney... and Obama? May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
What would Reagan do?
Talk about throwing down the glove: Roy Ashburn questioned Mark Abernathy's allegiance to Reagan this afternoon.
"They're not keeping faith with Ronald Reagan," Ashburn said of Abernathy and his camp. Isn't that about the harshest Republican-to-Republican accusation one could make these days? The topic came up after an Abernathy-backed press conference this morning, complete with a wooden Trojan horse, to oppose Prop. 93, the purported term-limit reform measure on the Feb. 5 state ballot. Ashburn has come out in support of 93. Reagan was always opposed to term limits, he said. Prop. 93, if it passes, won't abolish term limits; it will tweak how state lawmakers can spend time in office. Ashburn could run for an additional Senate term if voters approve 93. Opponents, including Abernathy, see the whole thing as a ploy -— a Trojan horse — to allow powerful incumbents to stay in office longer. The question is: Which side would Reagan be on? For or against 93? Read the full story on the No and Yes on Prop. 93 campaigns. Catch up on political news in our special section: http://www.bakersfield.com/... 14 comments from 10 users
1
posted by
tkozy
on Jan 21, 2008 at 07:00 PM
posted by
randomfactor
on Jan 21, 2008 at 07:52 PM
posted by
tangodoodles
on Jan 21, 2008 at 08:02 PM
Hmm, what a surprise. Ashburn would benefit if Prop 93 were to pass. I've never been a fan and I don't think he should get personal just because he might have to serve less time in office if Prop 93 passes. I'm sure Reagan would have been against Prop 93 since it sounds like a sham anyways that will just help politicians that are already in office. If Prop 93 passes, don't vote for Ashburn again!
posted by
randomfactor
on Jan 21, 2008 at 08:04 PM
There's no way I'm voting for 93, even *BEFORE* I found out it benefits Royboy. . Reagan would hold whatever position was on the teleprompter. posted by
RoyTullis
on Jan 21, 2008 at 08:46 PM
posted by
saberhagen
on Jan 21, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Reagan, Schmeagan. Why does it matter a rat's rectum what Reagan may have thought or done? He was at best a mediocre president whose trickledownless Reaganomics threw the country into economic recession. He wasn't even a good actor. It is inexplicable why Republicans continue to point to Reagan as some sort of political administrational god. Now, the Republicans' second go around with repackaged trickle down economics has been at least as disastrous, perhaps worse. Nothing has ever trickled down from the fat cats to the middle and lower classes, the rich merely got richer and the poor poorer. If reduced consumer spending is the cause of recession and trigger for a stimulus package, we're headed down the economic toilet because the lack of trickle leaves folks with little or nothing to spend. Now they think they're going to shut up the disgruntled and fix the problems with a $500 or so tax break band aid? They think people are going run right out to Urner's and buy a big screen TV or new refrigerator and that's going to make everything all right? What are you going to do with your rebate? Like most everyone else, your rebate/deduction will either go toward your remaining tax liability, servicing your other deep debt or heating your house for a few more hours if you still have one. Right up to the brink of disaster they assured us the economy was healthy. Yeah, consumers were spending all right, jamming up their 30 percent credit cards buying stuff they don't need and coud't otherwise afford. Now they're maxed out and can't get any more credit to buy anything. Like Reagan, today's Republicans still want "smaller government" when what the country really needs is more government regulation and oversight of the myriad financial abuses like predatory lending, price gouging in the health care and energy industries and other corporate shenanigans which have again driven the nation into yet another Republican-caused recession or worse. Reagan, Schmeagan. posted by
samheath
on Jan 22, 2008 at 05:54 AM
People misunderstand Reagan. What he really accomplished was tearing down the wall with Mexico. I will vote NO! on 93. posted by
randomfactor
on Jan 22, 2008 at 06:26 AM
So he was geographically challenged as well as historically. "Senor Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Ich bin ein burrito." posted by
BakersfieldSuperman
on Jan 22, 2008 at 08:57 AM
Hey Ashbum, give us all a break. Anyone can see the Prop 93 is a sham to keep yourselves in power. The only reason that the primary was moved up was to pass this legislation. God forbid you and the Speaker Nunez get out of office (thanks by the way for not keeping any of your promises). You two are perfect examples of bad politicians. I mean to portray this legislation as anything but just a way for you to keep power is despicable. I don't even know this Abernathy, but I venture to guess if you’re attacking him, he’s probably a good man. He probably believes that government should serve its people and the people it employs should be looking out for the people’s interests, not your own selfish ones. He probably also believes people aren’t complete idiots and can see through the shame you support. Heck he might even believe that politicians should do what they say. Sleep tight Ash bum and Nunez, your days are numbered and all the time you waste on trying to hold on to power (instead of working on real problems) will be over..
posted by
robbwillis
on Jan 22, 2008 at 09:20 AM
I can hardly wait to vote no on everything, especially 93. When will proposition 86, reducing the nunber of legislators by 50%, be on the ballot? posted by
nooneisabovethelaw
on Jan 22, 2008 at 09:53 AM
Abernathy doesn't support 93 because it gives him more candidates to push for offices. It's a business decision, not one of principles. And what would Reagan do? Well, as he's dead, it's rather a moot point, isn't it? Seriously, Ronald Reagan was a disaster for this nation. Jimmy Carter caught a lot of flack and maybe the only thing Reagan had going for him was he was cheery and optimistic (rather like many clueless idiots), whereas Carter was dour and seemed hangdog all the time. Carter wasn't a good president, either, but for folks to hold up Ronald Reagan as some kind of revered leader we should all aspire to be...no thanks. posted by
sagefever
on Jan 22, 2008 at 12:39 PM
posted by
robbwillis
on Jan 22, 2008 at 01:01 PM
posted by
sagefever
on Jan 22, 2008 at 01:27 PM
1
Our readers recommend: |