Ugh. Sheila Kuehl has her flaws, to be sure, but you state categorically that she hates men based on what? Because she's a lesbian? That is one stupid, stupid stereotype. I had hoped people would be past that, but obviously not. Sad, indeed.

What do you have against lesbians?

Richard is just upset that men's rights candidate Warren Farrell only got about 500 votes and is taking it out on progressive lesbian senators.

He also leaves this out from Weintraub's blog entry:

I spoke at his event with Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the Santa Monica Democrat who hopes to replace John Burton next year as leader of the state Senate. Kuehl is a partisan liberal, head of the “Progressive PAC” that raises money for leftist Democrats running in legislative primaries. She is also usually level-headed, pleasant, intelligent and courteous. Last night, she was none of the above.

Sheila's hatred of men is evident in her legislative agenda, and several of her colleagues in Sacramento have remarked on it.

While it's wrong to insist that all lesbians are warped, it's also wrong to insist they're all pure and wholesome. People come in many flavors, even lesbians.

Mr. Rhodes, I supplied the link to Weintraub's blog entry, and didn't feel a need to violate his copyright. You Wellberts may be above the law, but I'm not.

Just because you don't agree with her legislation, doesn't mean she hates men.

There are no links in your post and I didn't violate his copyright (I posted less from his entry than you did).

The reason I quoted Wentraub's intro is because he makes the opposite point from you - that she normally doesn't act this way and is "level-headed, pleasant, intelligent and courteous."

What part of this quote are you having trouble with, Mr. Rhodes: "Sheila's hatred of men is evident in her legislative agenda, and several of her colleagues in Sacramento have remarked on it."

Pay special attention to the last phrase.

Sheila puts up a good front, but you'd expect that from a professional actor, wouldn't you?

Wait, what was the third thing the governor can't do?

"He wants to tax the Indians, which he can't do."

I'd cheerfully give up all the taxes on Indian gaiming if the laws against sovereign nations making campaign contributions were applied.

That would eliminate the influence of one special interest immediately. Bustamante wouldn't have even been in the race.

And we'd be that much closer to a representative state government that actually represented the interest of all its residents.

Dream on.

Specifics Richard, specifics. What are these man hating acts of 2003 that she has been pushing?

And just because some colleagues have called her man hating doesn't mean it is true. I could say they think any woman who doesn't stay at home popping out babies and praising their husband and the lord is man hating and it wouldn't make it true.

Well, it's a relief to know that the days of the Sisterhood oppressing The Man are over in California. At last men don't have worry about violence from women and get paid equitably without having to sport a set of ovaries.

I saw somewhere else a ray of hope, the last time California had an actor for governor, the state produced some really excellent punk rock.

Great jumpled up jebus, it's bad enough you people in California proved how stupid you are, you don't have to gloat about it.

Shall we just ignore that last sentence, especially as the preceding sentence is also so ill-informed?

No, we shan't.

What part do you have problems with? That the governace of Ronnie Raygun produced great punk rock out of California or that the election proved the majority of stupid people vote?

"What part do you have problems with? That the governace of Ronnie Raygun produced great punk rock out of California or that the election proved the majority of stupid people vote?"

The first part: Reagan was governer from 1966 to 1974. Punk rock came later, during Jerry Brown's administration. Brown wasn't an actor, he just slept with Linda Ronstadt, and she was hot back then.

As for the second part, you just rephrased it so that I really can't answer it. I have no idea what percentage of stupid people vote, but given the voter registration rate, I'm not sure the majority of ANY group votes. Did you mean that the majority of voters are stupid? Depends on how you define stupid, but as cynic I'm in no position to criticize you there.

I take exception to the implication that Californians as a group are stupid. Again, depends on your definition, but in no way do I accept that Californians are stupider than any other nationality.

And I'm still not sure Schwartzenegger is worse than Davis or Bustamante. Exactly what disasters are you expecting of the Schwartzenegger administration?

Davis said people from every planet live in California, and Bustamante spent 30 years getting a BA. There are some stupid people in Kawl-ee-vornia, but the voters who fired Davis aren't among them.

But you know, it's comments like these that underscore the Left's basic animosity for democracy. They really do want to micro-manage everybody's lives, and it's all for our own good.

Sad.

actually, the left likes such democratic concepts as the person winning the popular vote becoming president, instant runoff voting, and proportional representation (which might even get more Libertarians elected).

Reagan inspired punk from the White House.

And I guess we can now call Bush man hating (via honorary Lesbian Caucus member Grover Norquist's ATR email):

PRESIDENT PROCLAIMS OCTOBER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH

President Bush on Wednesday said, "A home, a family should be a place of support, should be a peaceful place -- not a place of cruelty and brutality. Domestic violence betrays the most basic duties of life, it violates the law, it's wrong, it is a crime that must be confronted by individuals, by communities and by government."
President's Remarks

Fact Sheet

I don't think these voting structure issues are so much left-right as they are democracy vs. republicanism issues.

"actually, the left likes such democratic concepts as the person winning the popular vote becoming president, instant runoff voting, and proportional representation (which might even get more Libertarians elected)."

does this mean that alternatives to the above are necessarily undemocratic? does it mean the constitution is invalid? does it mean we should have a campaign under one system and change the system to effect a more palatable result? the suggestions listed above have merit, but so do the alternatives.

my biggest fear about a nationwide popular presidential vote would be the 50 state recount that would result from a bushgore thin margin.

i talked with several people after the 02 election who contended that the results were somehow invalid because the voters werent smart enough to know better. i read the same thing here at BC more than seldom. that's nonsense. the republicans seemed to suffer from the same delusion in 96--no matter what you think of clinton, they thought dole could win?

Since Richard was suggesting that the left is undemocratic, I was just giving him a few examples of why that wasn't true.

Certainly some of those ideas can be debated, but I do think the person who gets the most votes winning is a fundamentally democratic concept that should be worth the possible hassle of some recounts (most predicted close elections don't turn out that way as we saw Tuesday).

I've been saying for a while that as an example to Iraq and other countries we want to become democratic, Bush should work for the abolition of the Electoral College.

IRV is democratic because it helps increase the range of voices in a campaign while eliminating the possibility of someone being a spoiler.

I can understand objections to proportional representation more since it can conflict with local representation.

Matthew, Representative Kuehl is now in Chicago running for mayor. Since Daley is having some issues Kuehl thinks Chicago is going to be her stepping stone.
Matt J
Chicago