Common Ground

Posted on November 11, 2016 by RL CRABB

This entry was posted in History, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Common Ground

rl crabb says:

November 11, 2016 at 1:33 pm

For the past five years or so I’ve listened to the California Urbans ridicule the Jefferson movement for wanting more control of their lives and their resources. Many of the affected counties rejected Jefferson because they knew it was doomed to fail. But now, if the “Yes California” movement picks up steam, you can count on the eastern portions of California, Oregon and Washington to demand independence from the coast, and stay in the U.S.A.

Reply
George Boardman says:

November 11, 2016 at 4:11 pm

Does that mean I’ll have to move again?

Reply
- rl crabb says:
  
  November 13, 2016 at 6:43 am
  
  Just to Placer County. You can probably see it from your house.
  
  Reply
gjrebane says:

November 12, 2016 at 6:11 pm

Those who believe they can’t do better and therefore deserve a piece of their neighbor’s success are definitely looking for a viable Plan B.

Reply
Michael Anderson says:

November 12, 2016 at 7:36 pm

Bob, after I chuckled at the cartoon I realized that you were also being a bit disingenuous. I think that comparing the State of Jefferson and a new country made up of California and probably Oregon, Washington, and Nevada, is false equivalence.

George, your Great Divide meme is tired and you should really seriously consider giving it up. If you don’t like the fact that Nevada County is blue and getting bluer, you should just move to Idaho and stop whining. And while I’m at it, let’s talk about your claim this afternoon in your latest missive at RR that “we didn’t protest Obama’s election even though we we knew it would be a giant backward step for America.” As you well know, two years into Obama’s presidency, just before the 2010 mid-terms, McConnell said in a National Journal interview that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” So I’m going to assume that when the Democratic Party also puts forth the same call to action before the 2018 mid-terms, you will be perfectly fine with that since I don’t remember you protesting McConnell’s comment in 2010. If you did protest McConnell’s statement I’d appreciate if you could provide the citation. I searched RR and couldn’t find it.

Reply
- Greg Goodknight says:
  
  November 12, 2016 at 10:37 pm
  
  The attempt here to draw a moral equivalence between a Senate Minority Leader who identifies their main goal to be for his party to regain the Presidency (by legal, political means) and a temper tantrum involving riots and even some arson by angry losers, is ludicrous. I doubt any Senate Minority Leader faced with a President, Speaker and Senate Majority leader of the other party would think any differently.
  
  No, the Rebanes of the country weren’t rioting in 1992, 1996, 2008 or 2012 when their guy lost.
  
  The last numbers I saw for Nevada County were 48% Clinton, 44% Trump, percentages a Real Clear Politics poll would consider a toss-up. NC also voted against the Newsom gun control measure and may well have given a thumbs down to a school bond measure. State senate and ass’y seats went Red. Blue? It may well be headed in that direction but at the moment it would seem at the least to be a competitive county.
  
  Right now, the national Democratic Party is in a shambles and the riots are not helping your image. Party Faithful, heal thyself.
  
  Reply
  - Michael Anderson says:
    
    November 13, 2016 at 6:54 pm
    
    Gregory —
    
    I apologize for not explaining myself clearly enough for you to understand. If you’ll reread what I wrote, I said nothing about riots or arson. I was talking about “protesting” the very legitimacy of an elected president’s mantle to lead. In McConnell’s case, he said that the #1 Priority was to ensure that Obama was a one-term president. When asked if that meant he wanted Obama to fail, he replied “I don’t want him to fail, I want him to change.” Specifically what he meant was that if Obama didn’t allow the repeal of Obamacare, and also support specific tax cuts that he wanted carried over from the Bush administration, he had no choice but to shut down all cooperation with the Obama administration and destroy his presidency.
    
    Since I didn’t get a response from George–and perhaps you are his designated spokesperson on Bob’s blog–I’d really like to get some clarification about what progressive behavior will be acceptable to George. Given his comment today that the only constitutional amendment he would willingly entertain would be something he calls “Goose Gander,” I’m curious if he would be OK with extending that to progressives everywhere saying that their #1 Priority is to ensure that Trump is a one-term president, unless Trump is willing to keep Obamacare intact as well as maintaining Obama’s fiscal policy.
    
    Just so we’re clear about where I stand, there is absolutely no doubt that Donald Trump suffers from at least one psychiatric disorder (NPI) and perhaps several others. His control of the nuclear football is terrifying and this fact underlines why everything about his presidency must be vociferously opposed. Again, going back to the many anti-Obama strategies, I am particularly drawn to the birther issue which was a brilliant meme that definitely contributed to Obama’s governance difficulties. I am thinking about making up some nonsense about Trump–maybe he led a child-porn ring, or financed a death squad to kill minorities on Staten Island–and then just beating that drum like an idiot between now and 2018. I notice that George never apologized (like Trump sort of did) for contributing to the the birther crap, as he did here: http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/06/ruminations-7jun2011.html. Under the guise of “protest,” is George OK with this strategy beneath the Goose Gander umbrella?
    
    Michael A.
    
    Reply
    - Greg Goodknight says:
      
      November 13, 2016 at 11:14 pm
      
      Mike, I’m sorry you misunderstood my understatements as misunderstandings. Let me try again.
      
      Eight years of Obama has left him with relatively high personal approval numbers (people like him personally); however, while he turned that personal magnetism into two terms, the Democratic Party has been shattered to its core. Beginning in January the GOP controls the presidency, the Senate, the House, two thirds of Governerships, two thirds of all state legislatures. This is a historic overturning of Democratic power, giving the GOP back the stature they last had *before* FDR, back in the 1920’s, nearly a century ago.
      
      While that sinks in, it appears at least one but quite possibly two or three SCOTUS nominees will fall into this president’s lap, giving the country a constitutionalist high court of 5/4, 6/3 or even 7/2 majorities; that could leave a mark for a half century… consider that all the ugliness in politics started with the Borking of Bork, a Reagan appointee in the ’80’s…. and Justice Kennedy (a fine moderate who tends to be the dealmaker at the moment) was the nominee Reagan had to settle for.
      
      I’d be happier about all the above were I a Republican, but I’m overjoyed to have had Johnson on the ballot and, in the coming years, a Supreme court that, I expect, will be more friendly to liberarian interpretations of the Constitution for decades to come than had Clinton won. This is a good thing.
      
      Republicans working to defeat Democrats, and Democrats working to defeat Republicans, is what they are supposed to do. If they can’t win elections they can’t get their agendas enacted. McConnell was doing his job, and the result as of now is an invigorated GOP with a more than decimated Democratic Party and the credibility of their lickspittles in the media in tatters. Congratulations Mike, you won the battles and have now lost the war.
      
      I fully expect much kicking and screaming by the next Senate Minority Leader desperate to limit Trump to one term and regain Senate and House majorities… as the oldest first term President-Elect in history (I think that’s right) that’s probably the case for Trump, but in 2018 over half of the Democratic seats in the Senate are up for reelection and they will have their hands full just to keep relevant. No, I won’t be whining the Senate loyal opposition isn’t being nice to Trump in 2018… I might as well be upset that water is wet.
      
      Enjoy the upcoming supervisors elections. Savor the wins. There are a number of younger GOP pols moving up the ranks but the problem that comes with losing their grip of state and local governments (outside CA and a handful of other Dem strongholds) is that the Democratic younglings aren’t there to be groomed for the top jobs. Ouch. Get on that, will you?
      
      Reply
      - Michael Anderson says:
        
        November 14, 2016 at 7:25 pm
        
        Thanks Greg (and George), I’ll take that as a “yes.”
  - Chris Peterson says:
    
    November 14, 2016 at 9:04 am
    
    Greg is right on one point: it really is a false equivalency to compare McConnell’s reaction to Obama, on purely political grounds, to tens of thousands marching in the streets in protest of a President-elect they see as a morally-deficient sociopath. McConnell’s statements weren’t aimed at Obama’s character as a person; they were one political faction declaring it’s opposition to another. Had the President elect been McCain or Romney, you would have seen the usual griping, but nothing on this order. Even the highly disputed elections of W didn’t cause such a reaction.
    No, these protests are because of asinine statements during the campaign by the candidate himself, which some were able to overlook, that show him to be the worst choice possible for the most powerful position on the planet.
    And while we’re on the subject of false equivalency; if the actions of the most radical among us taints the arguments of the majority, then no one has a legitimate leg to stand on. Claiming that the destruction brought about by a few anarchists nullifies the concerns of the majority is an ignorant position that even those who state it know not to be true. It reduces us all to the will of the most idiotic.
    And, speaking of idiots, congratulations America, you just threw the rabbit in the briar patch. That’ll show ’em.
    
    Reply
- rl crabb says:
  
  November 13, 2016 at 7:03 am
  
  Michael – In this crazy mixed up country there is no equivalence or rhyme or reason. Anything is possible, and remember that long ago a handful of rural counties ended up becoming the state of West Virginia to stay connected to the U.S.
  
  Reply
  - Greg Goodknight says:
    
    November 13, 2016 at 3:14 pm
    
    RL, it made for a great ‘toon, but there really isn’t an equivalence between the SOJ effort to carve a 51st State from OR and NorCal, and the silly noises about a secession from the USA by Baghdad by the Bay and its more provincial neighbors. I doubt that would last as long as the Great Republic of Rough and Ready.
    
    That Jeffersonian of yours would soon have had hisself a bear rug if he’d had his d’ruthers.
    
    Reply
    - rl crabb says:
      
      November 13, 2016 at 6:35 pm
      
      It’s all a hypothetical wet dream for either state or country. I’m only pointing out that if the coasters actually got their wish that the rural counties would likely revolt. The Jeffs would hardly sit still for being tied to the new socialist utopia.
      
      Reply
  - Michael Anderson says:
    
    November 14, 2016 at 7:54 pm
    
    Bob,
    Don’t get me wrong, I’m actually sympathetic to those who support the State of Jefferson. The rural counties need better representation in Sacramento. It’s just that the SoJ governance plan is a mess–when I asked Eddie Garcia last year where the Jefferson state capital was going to be located, he told me that they didn’t need one, that the counties would rotate the capital duties via a mobile home. Seriously.
    The secession of west coast states has a much higher hurdle to overcome but at least the advocates understand the complexities of governance.
    Regarding how to prevent these general feelings of disenfranchisement, this is a great place to start: http://www.fairvote.org/reform_2020_agenda#a_national_popular_vote_for_president
    The replacement of the Electoral College by a national popular vote was supported yesterday by both Trump on “60 Minutes” and Newt Gingrich on “Face the Nation.” The time has come.
    
    Reply