Sunday, December 19, 2010

"Thoughts on why it would be better if Meg Whitman were governor instead of Jerry Brown."

"Thoughts on why it would be better if Meg Whitman were governor instead of Jerry Brown."

Now, when most of you read the title of this note, you may be thinking "oh, he's just a Republican hack, supporting Whitman over Brown because she's a Republican and he's a Democrat."  But before you make such a quick judgment and grievous mistake, let me inform you first that I have no allegiance to any political party.  My allegiance is to liberty and rights, particularly American liberty and rights, being that I am an America.  I am registered with a political party (which one, I will not disclose), but that is because of the two party-system we have in the United States.  In order for a vote to make a difference, one must unfortunately pick a political party to be registered with.  Therefore, according to necessity, I picked a political party that I thought matched my views and would offer politicians that I thought would best protect American liberty and rights.  But, I repeat I hold no allegiance to that party, nor any other party.  If that specific party I vote through were to become such that I felt they weren't protecting American liberty and rights, and the other major party became the one I had faith in, I would switch in a heartbeat, but again, only out of necessity, due to the two-party system here in the United States.  I want my vote to count for something.  And seeing as either one party or the other will be the ones winning the posts and offices, it is just common sense that one register with one of those parties.  Therefore, please do not misinterpret the title and purpose of my note, as I know some might do or like to do.

With that word of warning, I will proceed to explain why I feel it would better if Meg Whitman were governor of CA instead of Jerry Brown.  The reasoning stems from recent actions by Jerry Brown with regards to Proposition 8.  As we all know, CA Federal Judge, Vaughn Walker recently ruled (unjustly I might personally add) that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, as it violated the federal Constitution's "Due Process Clause" located within the 14th Amendment.  Never mind that Judge Walker also violated the Constitution by by-passing CA's state constitution altogether, taking this issue from what is rightfully an individual state issue, dictated by the federal Constitution's 10 Amendment, to a federal issue, by basing his judgment directly off of the federal Constitution instead of the CA state constitution.  But, for the scope and topic of this note, that is neither here nor there.  However, what is of importance is that the Prop 8 defense has since then filed for an appeals case concerning Judge Walker's ruling.  Now, in Prop 8's first hearing with Judge Walker, the CA state executive branch, namely the Governor, was required by law to be the sponsor or state defendant of Prop 8.  Because Prop 8 is a legislative proposition that was passed by the people of CA, the governor of CA and his branch was morally and legally responsible for adding his name to the case as the defender of his constituents' judgment, will, and opinion.  However, since the defense of Prop 8 has filed for an appeal to Judge Walker’s ruling, both current attorney general Jerry Brown and current governor Arnold Swarchenegger have stubbornly refused to represent the people of CA in the appeals case of Prop 8.  They have openly opposed Prop 8, and have chosen to uphold and place their own private opinions and views on Prop 8 before the will and sovereignty of the people of CA, who democratically elected them.  They are responsible and indebted to the voice and will of the people CA, and as such are once again morally and legally bound to represent the CA people in their appeals case, whether they agree with the proposition or not.

This is where my concern comes in regarding the possibility of Jerry Brown becoming the governor of CA for a 3rd time.  Mr. Brown has arrogantly shown the people of CA that he is going to do whatever the hell he wants to do, regardless of the people’s will or opinion, expressively shown in the passage of a proposition by an overwhelming majority of the CA people.  He is in charge, not the people who will elect him.  That’s the type of governing attitude he has shown, and one that, if done once before as a “servant” of the people, will very probably do it again if he becomes governor again.  His mindset seems to say, as evidenced by his refusal to represent prop 8’s defense in the appeals case, “shut up California, I don’t agree with you so I’m not going to do what you have dictated for me to do.  I know better than you, so just sit back and leave me alone.  I’ll do what I want to do.”  This is the sign of an arbitrary, egocentric and all-powerful tyrant, who will oppress his people if that is what he wants to.   Be very wary California.  Brown’s actions concerning Prop 8 have given you a foreshadowing of the type of government he will run.  His word is law.  He alone will reign.  Far be it from him to listen to the voice and will of the people when they petition for a redress of grievances or overwhelmingly vote upon any other proposition he may disagree with.  There would be no controlling him.

While Brown’s actions have established a historical precedent of what type of governor he would be, Whitman’s past actions provide a less ominous picture.  Whitman has never once been involved politics and has never once held any kind of public office.  As such, she has no idea what the governor’s office will be like.  She has shown no evidence concerning what type of governor she would be, unlike Brown.  She would thus be easier to control/sway and easier to influence by the people of CA, precisely because of her lack of experience in office.  She has no history of refusing to abide by the will of the people.  She is coming from a clean slate, and as such, the people of CA could easily bend her to their will, as long as it was constitutional.  Would you rather have an individual who, by his actions already, has shown himself to be a very probable uncontrollable tyrant as your governor, or one who has shown no such actions and given no such premonition, and who has done nothing but express her obedience to the will of the people of CA, however cliché or fake it may sound?  Remember, one has given clear evidence as to what kind of governor he would be while the other has not.  One has a historical record of selfish, arbitrary, and obdurate “service” to the people of CA, or rather, we could say reign over the people, while the other has no such record, a pristine, clean governing slate. 

I pose this question to you, my fellow Californians, because I am worried you do not see what kind of governor Jerry Brown would be.  Meg Whitman might not be the best candidate for governor of CA.  You may not agree with her policies and opinions.  But she has shown herself to be a governor who would be much more easily swayed by the voice and will of the people, and thus would be an infinitesimally better governor than would Jerry Brown, who refuses to do his duty to the people who elected him by representing the people of CA after their will has been expressed so plainly.  Jerry Brown has portrayed electing Meg Whitman as electing insanity twice.  But Jerry Brown has been governor of CA 2 times already.  It couldn’t be any better to elect insanity *thrice*! 

No comments:

Post a Comment