CA-GOP: "Call us the 'Party of Yes'. Also, vote 'no' on Gov. Brown's tax bill"

[Joe Republic]

After years of being labeled the "Party of No" by majority Democrats, California Republican leaders stood under rainy skies Thursday outside the Capitol to dub themselves the "Party of Yes."

The newly christened party kicked off its campaign by asking for a "no" vote on Gov. Jerry Brown's tax hike. California Republican Party leaders organized the press conference to launch a statewide "whistle-stop tour" just as Brown had finished collecting signatures for his $9 billion tax initiative.

"Jerry Brown is turning in his signatures as we speak to make that (top tax rate) the highest rate in the country," said California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro. "We think that's the wrong way to go."

Standing next to a "Party of Yes" banner proclaiming "yes" on jobs, solutions and tax relief, they said the governor's plan would drive businesses and residents out of the state. They promoted their own budget proposal, which relies on deep cuts and one-time revenue maneuvers but does not raise taxes.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

[Joe Republic]

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

[Torie]

And the major reason Jerry wants more revenue is because he caved to the Dem legislature on doing much about public employee pensions, unlike Cuomo in NY.  No!

[Senator Sbane]

Is he even getting his 8 or 12 point plan through or did he cave on that? I have a feeling this might fail.

[krazen1211]

Tax cuts are typically very popular among the public and perform very well at the ballot box.  These tax hikes can be avoided simply by reducing the number of excess public sector employees and other forms of government spending.

[Senator Sbane]

I also wonder whether the GOP missed a trick by not putting a change to 401k pension plans on the ballot. Though I'm not sure if that would be legal. I don't mind the rich paying more but this is a bit much and the background of what happened is infuriating as well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Polling shows that Jerry Brown's tax hike for the rich is in good shape. The Munger tax hike will fail, but that's not Jerry Brown's.

Jerry Brown's Prop does raise sales tax by 0.5%, but that doesn't affect rich people so the Republican party doesn't give a crap about that.

[Senator Sbane]

Polling shows that Jerry Brown's tax hike for the rich is in good shape. The Munger tax hike will fail, but that's not Jerry Brown's.

Jerry Brown's Prop does raise sales tax by 0.5%, but that doesn't affect rich people so the Republican party doesn't give a crap about that.

I thought the sales tax hike was reduced to 0.25% in the compromise. I liked his original plan where the top rate only went up by 2%. I would have voted for that. This might be counterproductive and with no real pension reforms it is just wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Polling shows that Jerry Brown's tax hike for the rich is in good shape. The Munger tax hike will fail, but that's not Jerry Brown's.

Jerry Brown's Prop does raise sales tax by 0.5%, but that doesn't affect rich people so the Republican party doesn't give a crap about that.

I thought the sales tax hike was reduced to 0.25% in the compromise. I liked his original plan where the top rate only went up by 2%. I would have voted for that. This might be counterproductive and with no real pension reforms it is just wrong.

OK, you're right. This is the one that had the signatures submitted.

1578. (12-0009)

Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 03/16/12 | Circulation Deadline: 08/13/12 | Signatures Required: 807,615

Proponent: Thomas A. Willis c/o Karen Getman (510) 346-6200

Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years. Increases sales and use tax by ¼ cent for four years. Allocates temporary tax revenues 89 percent to K-12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges. Bars use of funds for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent. Guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state revenues over the next seven fiscal years. Estimates of the revenue increases vary—from $6.8 billion to $9 billion for 2012-13 and from $5.4 billion to $7.6 billion, on average, in the following five fiscal years, with lesser amounts in 2018-19. These revenues would be available to (1) pay for the state's school and community college funding requirements, as increased by this measure, and (2) address the state's budgetary problem by paying for other spending commitments. Limitation on the state's ability to make changes to the programs and revenues shifted to local governments in 2011, resulting in a more stable fiscal situation for local governments. (12-0009) (Full Text)

[Progressive Realist]

YES, we will vote NO on that bill.

[Nichlemn]

Both "Party of No" and "Party of Yes" are stupid rhetoric. Both implicitly assume the golden mean fallacy, that compromising is necessarily good, or even just occasionally voting for something the other side produces regardless of whether it represents a compromise.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Both "Party of No" and "Party of Yes" are stupid rhetoric. Both implicitly assume the golden mean fallacy, that compromising is necessarily good, or even just occasionally voting for something the other side produces regardless of whether it represents a compromise.

Agreed, compromising for compromises sakes doesn't work so well. For example the Catholic Centrist party and Chamberlain look pretty stupid in retrospect for compromising with Hitler.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

The California GOP is basically a troll party. They wanted redistricting by a special commission. We got redistricting by that commission. And now they got this piece of crap on the ballot.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Referendum_on_the_State_Senate_Redistricting_Plan_%282012%29

[Senator Sbane]

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

The California GOP is basically a troll party. They wanted redistricting by a special commission. We got redistricting by that commission. And now they got this piece of crap on the ballot.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Referendum_on_the_State_Senate_Redistricting_Plan_%282012%29

So if it gets rejected what happens? They just have to draw another map? I think the Republicans are realizing they could have bitched and moaned and got a map passed that was a bipartisan gerrymander. Especially with only 40 seats, many become marginal and that reduces the margin of error the Republicans have.

[Joe Republic]

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

[greenforest32]

Once the 2/3 supermajority requirement for tax increases is eliminated/reduced or Democrats get 2/3 of the seats in the state legislature (this is a possibility with the new maps as I understand it which is why they petitioned to overturn the state senate map), it will really be over for the CA-GOP.

They will have to move to the left.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

    "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

     It's pretty good for them; at least they recognized the problem & attacked it. In general, their operations have been a strategic trainwreck for years. They've struggled to maintain what little power they've had, while eliminating any future opportunities for growth in the process.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

    "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

     It's pretty good for them; at least they recognized the problem & attacked it. In general, their operations have been a strategic trainwreck for years. They've struggled to maintain what little power they've had, while eliminating any future opportunities for growth in the process.

The CA GOP's problem is that they are a bunch of extreme lunatics. They probably wouldn't be so dead if they took a page from the Rhode Island Republicans and stopped being extreme right-wingers in a liberal state.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

     It's pretty good for them; at least they recognized the problem & attacked it. In general, their operations have been a strategic trainwreck for years. They've struggled to maintain what little power they've had, while eliminating any future opportunities for growth in the process.

The CA GOP's problem is that they are a bunch of extreme lunatics. They probably wouldn't be so dead if they took a page from the Rhode Island Republicans and stopped being extreme right-wingers in a liberal state.

     Yeah, they need to nominate better candidates who are better suited to the politics of the state. When you choose Carly Fiorina over Tom Campbell, something is very wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

     "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

     It's pretty good for them; at least they recognized the problem & attacked it. In general, their operations have been a strategic trainwreck for years. They've struggled to maintain what little power they've had, while eliminating any future opportunities for growth in the process.

The CA GOP's problem is that they are a bunch of extreme lunatics. They probably wouldn't be so dead if they took a page from the Rhode Island Republicans and stopped being extreme right-wingers in a liberal state.

     Yeah, they need to nominate better candidates who are better suited to the politics of the state. When you choose Carly Fiorina over Tom Campbell, something is very wrong.

Well, the state legislature in particular.  For some reason Abel Maldonado was seen as some sort of liberal because he extracted a very high price from the Democrats for his vote for the budget while every other Republican voted against it. Of course they don't have their own budget. They're just the party of no, trying to obstruct. Good think voters scrapped that stupid 2/3rds majority to pass a simple budget. 2/3rds is still needed to raise taxes, though.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

    "Party of Yes" sounds weird, but it's still a positive branding move. I suspect that standing for negation doesn't exactly excite voters.

As the first paragraph of the article explains, this was a deliberate effort to counter their labeling by the CA Democrats as the 'Party of No'.  The problem is that their very first act as the 'Party of Yes' is to ask voters to say 'no' to Jerry Brown's tax proposition.

     Addressing the self-evident does not interest me. Commenting on the surprising competence of the CAGOP's strategy (even if it is really rather hypocritical) does.

Contradicting their brand new slogan at its press launch doesn't really strike me as very competent, tbh.

     It's pretty good for them; at least they recognized the problem & attacked it. In general, their operations have been a strategic trainwreck for years. They've struggled to maintain what little power they've had, while eliminating any future opportunities for growth in the process.

The CA GOP's problem is that they are a bunch of extreme lunatics. They probably wouldn't be so dead if they took a page from the Rhode Island Republicans and stopped being extreme right-wingers in a liberal state.

Why are the ideologies for the Rhode Island parties so similar?

[freepcrusher]

my question is why has the state shifted to the democrats so much at the presidential level? In my 1974 Almanac of American Politics, a full 56% of the voters were registered democrats. Now its down to 44%. The number of DTS voters has also increased from 7% in the 1970s to the current 26%.

One thing someone on redracinghorses said was that California democrats are much more partisan now then they were back then and that Reagan always enjoyed support in heavily democratic areas (by registration) such as Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, El Monte etc.

[Χahar]

Partisan registration isn't particularly meaningful.