Some times things are written so well, there is no choice but to reprint them…
From the NO on 93 Campaign
The bad news just keeps coming for the Yes on 93 campaign. Two of California’s top newspapers – The San Jose Mercury News and The Fresno Bee – came out in strong opposition to Proposition 93 on Sunday. This is on the heels of The San Diego Union-Tribune’s hard-hitting editorial against Prop. 93.
Legislative leaders Nunez and Perata took it on the chops as all three papers singled out the Assembly Speaker and Senate President for harsh – but richly deserved – criticism.
What’s more, a liberal blog reports that the San Diego Democratic Club refused to support Prop. 93 and went neutral on the initiative. This echoes the vote by 47% of the California Democratic Party’s Executive Committee to also support a neutral position on Proposition 93.
So perhaps it’s no wonder that after Fabian Nunez’s publicity stunt on the mortgage crisis fell flat he rolled up his sleeves this past weekend and promptly went to work for the people of California – by campaigning in Iowa. It seems the Speaker felt the national mortgage crisis he single-handedly promised to solve – just as he came through on redistricting, health care, the state budget and water policy – could wait while he played presidential politics. Nunez apparently has decided that given Prop. 93’s prospects his top priority is landing that Administration appointment in a future White House.
The latest examples of Nunez’s cynical and self-serving (a term used often in relation to the Speaker) conduct remind us why it’s worth reviewing what those editorials had to say about the Speaker and his initiative. The Mercury News declared Proposition 93 "deserves to crash and burn." Legislators made Prop. 93 "a self-serving means to prolong their careers and, at least for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, to preserve their opulent lifestyles."
The paper notes "a ‘transitioning period’ would allow current lawmakers to serve a dozen years in one house, regardless of time spent in the other chamber. Twenty-eight senators would be able to spend 18 years in the Legislature. Perata would be able to run for an additional term. Nunez would get a half-dozen more years. News accounts of both men’s sumptuous spending of campaign money have hurt the cause and reminded voters why they adopted term limits in the first place. (Nunez’s expenses included stays at the best hotels in Europe and a Paris shopping spree.)"
The Mercury News observes that if Prop. 93 wins "it will make redistricting reform all but impossible to achieve" and concludes that "passing Proposition 93 after lawmakers went back on their word on redistricting would reward double-dealing."
The Fresno Bee says 93 "is a starkly transparent sham even by Sacramento standards. It should be resoundingly rejected by the state’s voters on Feb. 5."
The paper also notes that Nunez and Perata promised to reform redistricting "but as they’ve done before, they reneged on those promises – this time without even bothering to offer the mealy-mouthed excuses they’ve come up with in the past. That is enough by itself to cost them any hope of support for Proposition 93."
It continues that "Proposition 93 is not a serious reform of term limits. It’s a scam dressed in the raiment of reform. If it is passed, Nunez, Perata and many other incumbents could run for re-election in the June primary. Many of them would still be around when the time comes, after the 2010 census, to draw the legislative boundaries again. That’s a recipe for preserving the gerrymandering that currently makes a mockery of state elections."
The editorial concludes, "Nunez, Perata and the other incumbents want us to reward them for that. They want to stay in office so they can continue their efforts on our behalf. You know, those bold strokes, they’ve taken to solve the state’s growing water crisis, restore a crumbling infrastructure, increase performance in the state’s schools, clean up the air, promote economic development and sustain California’s world-class system of higher education. If you like the job these elected leaders have been doing in those areas, then, by all means, vote for Proposition 93, and keep them hard at work. If not, then vote "no" on this brutally cynical piece of business."
We couldn’t say it any better ourselves. If any lobbyists are shopping for a Christmas gift for Fabian Nunez it sounds like he could really use a warm pair of gloves.