Friday, July 1, 2011

Fuentes sighting; more of that goofy G.O.P. secession fever

Uh-oh. Our next President, pardner
     Today, OC Weekly’s Matt Coker (Register Tongue Bath) notes that,
     After [Texas Gov. Rick Perry] met in Newport Beach's Pacific Club [yesterday] with big GOP donors and the likes of Orange County GOP Chairman Scott Baugh, Flash Report publisher Jon Fleischman, OC GOP Chairman Emeritus Tom Fuentes, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), Board of Equalization member Michelle Steele, former state Republican Party chairman Shawn Steel, former Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine), Claremont Institute President Brian Kennedy and—most tellingly—Reg opinion shaper Brian Calle, Santa Ana's daily gave Perry the print version of a tongue bath.
     Yeah, a tongue bath. See here.
Why not call it "West Texas"?
     You’ll recall that Gov. Perry, a noisy heckler of federal government, has indicated the possibility of Texas’ seceding from the union, as it did once before (you remember that Civil War thing; sucession back then didn't work out so well).
     So he’s yet another red-meat tossing asshole. I do wish these Texans would stop talkin’ about secession and just do it. But they’re all hat and no cattle.

     Speaking of Republicans and secession, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone is fed up with the dysfunction of California government (who ain't?), and so he’s pursuing the creation of a new state: South California: see.
     Says Stone,
"We have a state Legislature that has gone wild. They just don't care. Their goal was to get a balanced budget so they could continue to get a paycheck," Stone said by telephone late Thursday. "There is only one solution: A serious secession from the liberal arm of the state of California. I know the state of California can do better."
     Something tells me that Mr. Stone is looking for attention.
     If he gets his way (yeah, right), the OC will be part of the new state. And surely the state capitol will be somewhere in the O.C. Newport Beach?
     I'm startin' work on the new state flag.

The flag of the great state of SoCal

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Time to let Fuentes go, I think. He is going out with a whimper. His time on the BOT and in the world of dirty politics is about over.

Anonymous said...

I do think dividing CA up into two states makes sense, so I'd be open to Stone's conclusion but not via the premises he states to reach that conclusion. I've lived in both parts, and northern CA and southern CA are about as wildly different as can be. (The state is too..damn..long.) Also, BvT, isn't citing the Civil War an appeal to fear, and thus fallacious? Given that there have been many secessions & break-aways that have been successful throughout history, and done for sensible and even noble reasons..... As for CA, the band Pavement already provided a rallying cry/anthem ("Two States"), so we've got that in the bag.

Roy Bauer said...

Matt:
Well, what I meant to suggest is that both politicians (that I mentioned re succession) pursued or seemingly entertained succession measures that had no hope of passing but that existed only to excite the less cerebral of their followers. Red-meat tossing at its finest.
Is it a good idea? Not sure. There may be a good point to splitting the state; still, I wouldn't want to be saddled with so many so-called "conservatives." It would be odd: going over night from a moderate-to-liberal state to a "red" state, for surely South Cal would be very red.

Anonymous said...

Ah, good point, BvT. I didn't consider the aspect of things that dividing the state could be a very polarizing event and that certain Repubs would do it for advantageous gerrymandering. It's just amazing how long the state of CA is..if we overlaid CA on the east coast, we'd see how diverse that area would cover....and the east coast has all these little states, micro-states almost (Rhode Island, DC, Delaware). It's an interesting topic (two states idea), not "goofy" I would say, as long as it can be handled intelligently.... which, as you point out, with Republicans is difficult to do sometimes. Hang in there. Your northern comrades are with you in spirit. :)

Anonymous said...

It's really Western CA & Eastern CA (traditionally conservative Eastern CA, BTW), not North & South. And I do believe your "gerrymandering" was the result of your fellow libs.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to split the OC!

Anonymous said...

Hell....Let's split IVC...Oh wait....That's already been done.

Anonymous said...

Politically, sure, there are east vs west divides, but culturally (and let's not forget where places get their water), northern CA and southern CA are worlds apart. (You'll notice this somewhere around Santa Cruz.) To become its own state, a territory must: define its borders (doable, but controversial), have a constitution (easy enough), have 60,000 people (done), and get the ok from Congress (not easily done). This is to bring a *new* state into being; I don't know the process for redefining an existing state. The argument that gerrymandering is only done by "libs" (I'm an anarchist, by the way) is absurd; both sides do it. And I personally try to avoid using the over-simplistic red/blue state dichotomy, as it's just as bad as the color-coded, dumbed down terror alert system in place during the Bush II regime (and early Obama admin before being abandoned). Hell, CA is big enough to split more than in half.....

Anonymous said...

Roy, have you considered retiring to Northern CA? I think it would fit you, and you've obviously fought a long and noble battle against ratbastardry and neanderthalism in southern Ca. Northern Ca isn't without its problems or its idiocracies, but it isn't the hotbed of fundamental conservatism like OC.

Anonymous said...

Notice how Snope referres to the Bush admin as a regime, and the Obama regime as an admin? Speaks volumes...

Roy Bauer said...

5:28, it's "refers" not "referres." And is that all you've got--a complaint about Snope's word usage? Try to think of something substantial to say, dude. Or move along.

Anonymous said...

Sure my word choice speaks volumes, but I'm not hiding anything. 2000 - 2008 was a very scary period in history, not so much because of any phantom terrorist menace, but because of how dangerously close the US came to being a bona fide police state. It (Bush II) was a regime in how it acted, and in how we define "regime" versus "administration". I'm not necessarily endorsing Obama or the "libs", just trying to use language accurately based on our accepted definitions of things. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Bush II admin, we can agree on what constitutes a regime, and I think Bush II acted far more in the manner of a regime than Obama is approaching things. Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Obama's approach, just characterizing a difference between the 2 administrations. Is my language loaded? Perhaps, but I stand behind a description of Bush II as running a regime.

Anonymous said...

9:42 AM, July 06, 2011

What is meant by your comment that IVC has already been split? Please elaborate

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...