<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FlashReport &#187; Frank Schubert</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.flashreport.org/blog/author/frank-schubert/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.flashreport.org/blog</link>
	<description>...on California&#039;s most significant political news...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 18:44:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s Gay Marriage Gambit A Pinball Loser</title>
		<link>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2012/05/16/obamas-gay-marriage-gambit-a-pinball-loser/</link>
		<comments>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2012/05/16/obamas-gay-marriage-gambit-a-pinball-loser/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 08:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frank Schubert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Posts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flashreport.org/blog/?p=53527</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[





<p>After months of very carefully managing expectations about his
“evolving” position on gay marriage, President Obama suddenly found
himself last week careening between powerful forces like the steel
ball in Elton John’s “pinball wizard.” His own Vice President threw
him into the pinball machine, and then his Education Secretary
thrust the plunger, launching him into game.</p>
<p>This whole scene began unfolding the Sunday before North
Carolina voters were to cast ballots on a proposed constitutional
amendment to define marriage exclusively as the union of one man
and one woman. At the same time that Biden was popping off that he
was “very comfortable” with men marrying other men, polls were
starting to show that the marriage amendment would likely pass.
This after Obama had publicly opposed the North Carolina marriage
amendment. Recall that North Carolina is so important to Obama’s
reelection plans that he selected the state to host the Democratic
nominating convention this September. Obama’s response to this
unfolding drama was to cancel a scheduled Election Day campaign
trip to the state. Then Arne Carlson, the barely-known Education
Cabinet Secretary, upped&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2012/05/16/obamas-gay-marriage-gambit-a-pinball-loser/'>Read More</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[





<p>After months of very carefully managing expectations about his
“evolving” position on gay marriage, President Obama suddenly found
himself last week careening between powerful forces like the steel
ball in Elton John’s “pinball wizard.” His own Vice President threw
him into the pinball machine, and then his Education Secretary
thrust the plunger, launching him into game.</p>
<p>This whole scene began unfolding the Sunday before North
Carolina voters were to cast ballots on a proposed constitutional
amendment to define marriage exclusively as the union of one man
and one woman. At the same time that Biden was popping off that he
was “very comfortable” with men marrying other men, polls were
starting to show that the marriage amendment would likely pass.
This after Obama had publicly opposed the North Carolina marriage
amendment. Recall that North Carolina is so important to Obama’s
reelection plans that he selected the state to host the Democratic
nominating convention this September. Obama’s response to this
unfolding drama was to cancel a scheduled Election Day campaign
trip to the state. Then Arne Carlson, the barely-known Education
Cabinet Secretary, upped&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2012/05/16/obamas-gay-marriage-gambit-a-pinball-loser/'>Read More</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2012/05/16/obamas-gay-marriage-gambit-a-pinball-loser/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recapping The New Hampshire Debate</title>
		<link>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/06/15/recapping-the-new-hampshire-debate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/06/15/recapping-the-new-hampshire-debate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:19:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frank Schubert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Posts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flashreport.org/blog/?p=50172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[





<p>I’ve done a fair amount of work in New Hampshire for
conservative organizations, so I watched the debate last night at
Saint Anselm College with considerable interest. Here’s my take on
winners and losers.</p>
<p>The biggest loser was Barack Obama. The entire field presented
itself as credible, articulate and capable. The range of cogent
attacks on the Obama Administration serve as a great
early-indicator of what next year’s General Election is going to
look like. He’s vulnerable on the economy, jobs, federal spending,
entitlements, energy independence, bailouts, immigration and so
much more.</p>
<p>The second biggest loser was Sarah Palin. If Palin is actually
looking at getting into the race (who knows?) her apparent strategy
is to arrive late into a weak field and suck up all the energy in
the race. However, the field last night showed that it is not weak,
it is quite strong. We have businessmen, former Governors, former
Senators and members of Congress past and present speaking
forcefully, intelligently and candidly about why Barack Obama has
failed the country.</p>
<p>Mitt Romney had a very good night. Romney entered the debate as
the favorite, and nothing occurred&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/06/15/recapping-the-new-hampshire-debate/'>Read More</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[





<p>I’ve done a fair amount of work in New Hampshire for
conservative organizations, so I watched the debate last night at
Saint Anselm College with considerable interest. Here’s my take on
winners and losers.</p>
<p>The biggest loser was Barack Obama. The entire field presented
itself as credible, articulate and capable. The range of cogent
attacks on the Obama Administration serve as a great
early-indicator of what next year’s General Election is going to
look like. He’s vulnerable on the economy, jobs, federal spending,
entitlements, energy independence, bailouts, immigration and so
much more.</p>
<p>The second biggest loser was Sarah Palin. If Palin is actually
looking at getting into the race (who knows?) her apparent strategy
is to arrive late into a weak field and suck up all the energy in
the race. However, the field last night showed that it is not weak,
it is quite strong. We have businessmen, former Governors, former
Senators and members of Congress past and present speaking
forcefully, intelligently and candidly about why Barack Obama has
failed the country.</p>
<p>Mitt Romney had a very good night. Romney entered the debate as
the favorite, and nothing&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/06/15/recapping-the-new-hampshire-debate/'>Read More</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/06/15/recapping-the-new-hampshire-debate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Symptomatic Love Child</title>
		<link>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/18/the-symptomatic-love-child/</link>
		<comments>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/18/the-symptomatic-love-child/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 13:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frank Schubert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Posts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flashreport.org/blog/?p=24255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[





<p>Many of us already considered Arnold Schwarzenegger to be among
the worst governors in California history, if not <span style=
"text-decoration: underline;">the</span> worst. Now we know that he
is also one of the most despicable.</p>
<p>Schwarzenegger’s fundamental problem as governor is that nobody
could ever trust him. Lacking any core principles, his mood and his
style of governance seemed to change with the weather. One day he
was a leftie environmentalist, the next a conservative born-again
tax cutter. One day he is crusading to recruit jobs, the next he is
driving jobs away with ill-considered policies. One day he promotes
the Hummer, the next a hybrid. One day he says that the state must
live within its means, the next day he is proposing an expansion of
government. Negotiating with Schwarzenegger was like negotiating
with a stick of butter in the hot sun. This is why he accomplished
so little of substance – nobody could ever trust that they were
dealing with someone who would stick to the deal for the long
term.</p>
<p>Arnold Schwarzenegger utterly lacked principles except for one –
Arnold comes first. And that is the sad story that has now been
revealed with the&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/18/the-symptomatic-love-child/'>Read More</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[





<p>Many of us already considered Arnold Schwarzenegger to be among
the worst governors in California history, if not <span style=
"text-decoration: underline;">the</span> worst. Now we know that he
is also one of the most despicable.</p>
<p>Schwarzenegger’s fundamental problem as governor is that nobody
could ever trust him. Lacking any core principles, his mood and his
style of governance seemed to change with the weather. One day he
was a leftie environmentalist, the next a conservative born-again
tax cutter. One day he is crusading to recruit jobs, the next he is
driving jobs away with ill-considered policies. One day he promotes
the Hummer, the next a hybrid. One day he says that the state must
live within its means, the next day he is proposing an expansion of
government. Negotiating with Schwarzenegger was like negotiating
with a stick of butter in the hot sun. This is why he accomplished
so little of substance – nobody could ever trust that they were
dealing with someone who would stick to the deal for the long
term.</p>
<p>Arnold Schwarzenegger utterly lacked principles except for one –
Arnold comes first. And that is the sad story that has now been
revealed with the&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/18/the-symptomatic-love-child/'>Read More</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/18/the-symptomatic-love-child/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Congratulations, Mr. President</title>
		<link>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/03/congratulations-mr-president/</link>
		<comments>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/03/congratulations-mr-president/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 05:25:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frank Schubert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Posts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flashreport.org/blog/?p=23347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[





<p>President Obama made the right call in approving the
highly-surgical killing of master terrorist Osama Bin Laden at a
compound in Pakistan, and he deserves credit for the successful
mission. As Commander in Chief, he took a risk – both militarily
and politically. Intelligence reports were reportedly initially far
from conclusive when planning for the mission began last August. By
last Friday the president felt he had enough intelligence to
believe that Bin Laden was actually in the compound, and approved
the mission.</p>
<p>As with any mission, success was far from certain, yet Obama
gave the order. Good for him. Had it backfired, the news today (and
for a longtime afterwards) would have been that Obama is an
incompetent leader. We would have had a replay of Jimmy Carter’s
disastrous April 1980 attempt to rescue 52 American hostages in
Iran. In that failed mission, several helicopters crashed, no
hostages were rescued and eight American servicemen lost their
lives. The event played a major role in Carter’s defeat to Ronald
Reagan later that year.</p>
<p>Instead, today we are celebrating the death of one of the most
horrific terrorists in the history of civilization as a&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/03/congratulations-mr-president/'>Read More</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[





<p>President Obama made the right call in approving the
highly-surgical killing of master terrorist Osama Bin Laden at a
compound in Pakistan, and he deserves credit for the successful
mission. As Commander in Chief, he took a risk – both militarily
and politically. Intelligence reports were reportedly initially far
from conclusive when planning for the mission began last August. By
last Friday the president felt he had enough intelligence to
believe that Bin Laden was actually in the compound, and approved
the mission.</p>
<p>As with any mission, success was far from certain, yet Obama
gave the order. Good for him. Had it backfired, the news today (and
for a longtime afterwards) would have been that Obama is an
incompetent leader. We would have had a replay of Jimmy Carter’s
disastrous April 1980 attempt to rescue 52 American hostages in
Iran. In that failed mission, several helicopters crashed, no
hostages were rescued and eight American servicemen lost their
lives. The event played a major role in Carter’s defeat to Ronald
Reagan later that year.</p>
<p>Instead, today we are celebrating the death of one of the most
horrific terrorists in the history of civilization as a&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/03/congratulations-mr-president/'>Read More</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/05/03/congratulations-mr-president/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meet Attorney General Steve Cooley</title>
		<link>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2010/06/09/meet-attorney-general-steve-cooley/</link>
		<comments>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2010/06/09/meet-attorney-general-steve-cooley/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frank Schubert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Posts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flashreport.org/blog?p=7240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[





<p>Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley not only won
the Republican nomination for Attorney General, he got his dream
match-up in Kamala Harris, the uber-liberal District Attorney of
San Francisco, and he will be California’s next Attorney
General.</p>
<p>Kamala Harris is simply unelectable as Attorney General. She has
the worst criminal conviction rate in the state, having barely won
over 50% of her felony trials. She presides over a Sanctuary City
and actually provides support and legal comfort for illegal
immigrants. She is on the hot seat for failing to disclose massive
negligence in the San Francisco crime lab, a failure that could
result in the release of thousands of violent criminals. She
opposes the death penalty. She was THE most liberal candidate in
the Democrat primary, and now she is toast. (PS – How do you feel
today, Chris Kelly? $10 million for a 2:1 loss. Ouch.)</p>
<p>Steve Cooley is certainly not a perfect candidate. He’s got big
problems with his administration of the Three Strikes law,
especially his office policy not to pursue a third strike unless it
is a violent felony. He also authored a ballot initiative to weaken
the Three Strikes law.&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2010/06/09/meet-attorney-general-steve-cooley/'>Read More</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[





<p>Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley not only won
the Republican nomination for Attorney General, he got his dream
match-up in Kamala Harris, the uber-liberal District Attorney of
San Francisco, and he will be California’s next Attorney
General.</p>
<p>Kamala Harris is simply unelectable as Attorney General. She has
the worst criminal conviction rate in the state, having barely won
over 50% of her felony trials. She presides over a Sanctuary City
and actually provides support and legal comfort for illegal
immigrants. She is on the hot seat for failing to disclose massive
negligence in the San Francisco crime lab, a failure that could
result in the release of thousands of violent criminals. She
opposes the death penalty. She was THE most liberal candidate in
the Democrat primary, and now she is toast. (PS – How do you feel
today, Chris Kelly? $10 million for a 2:1 loss. Ouch.)</p>
<p>Steve Cooley is certainly not a perfect candidate. He’s got big
problems with his administration of the Three Strikes law,
especially his office policy not to pursue a third strike unless it
is a violent felony. He also authored a ballot initiative to weaken
the Three Strikes law.&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2010/06/09/meet-attorney-general-steve-cooley/'>Read More</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2010/06/09/meet-attorney-general-steve-cooley/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PROP. 15: A CLASSIC BAIT AND SWITCH</title>
		<link>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2010/06/02/prop-15-a-classic-bait-and-switch/</link>
		<comments>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2010/06/02/prop-15-a-classic-bait-and-switch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frank Schubert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Posts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flashreport.org/blog?p=7670</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[





<p>To the average voter, it sounds so innocent.</p>
<p>Levy on tax on lobbyists to finance a “pilot project” that would
pay the campaign expenses of candidates in the next two elections
for Secretary of State.</p>
<p>But like many ballot initiatives that promise one thing and
deliver something quite different, Prop 15 is not what its backers
say it is.</p>
<p>Prop 15 doesn’t stop with two elections. It would repeal
the ban on tax-supported campaigns statewide. With a simple
majority vote, legislators could finance their own campaigns with
taxpayer dollars. The same is true for city councils and
boards of supervisors.</p>
<p>And it doesn’t stop with the lobbyist tax. Prop 15 invites
legislators to use the General Fund or “other sources” to pay for
campaign expenses. Those “other sources” include new taxes
and fees – not to pay the salaries of police officers and teachers,
but to pay for negative ads and junk mail.</p>
<p>Four years ago, 74 percent of voters said NO to Prop 89, a plan
to tax businesses to finance political campaigns. In 2000,
two-thirds of voters rejected another public campaign financing
scheme, Proposition&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2010/06/02/prop-15-a-classic-bait-and-switch/'>Read More</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[





<p>To the average voter, it sounds so innocent.</p>
<p>Levy on tax on lobbyists to finance a “pilot project” that would
pay the campaign expenses of candidates in the next two elections
for Secretary of State.</p>
<p>But like many ballot initiatives that promise one thing and
deliver something quite different, Prop 15 is not what its backers
say it is.</p>
<p>Prop 15 doesn’t stop with two elections. It would repeal
the ban on tax-supported campaigns statewide. With a simple
majority vote, legislators could finance their own campaigns with
taxpayer dollars. The same is true for city councils and
boards of supervisors.</p>
<p>And it doesn’t stop with the lobbyist tax. Prop 15 invites
legislators to use the General Fund or “other sources” to pay for
campaign expenses. Those “other sources” include new taxes
and fees – not to pay the salaries of police officers and teachers,
but to pay for negative ads and junk mail.</p>
<p>Four years ago, 74 percent of voters said NO to Prop 89, a plan
to tax businesses to finance political campaigns. In 2000,
two-thirds of voters rejected another public campaign financing
scheme, Proposition&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2010/06/02/prop-15-a-classic-bait-and-switch/'>Read More</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2010/06/02/prop-15-a-classic-bait-and-switch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UNDERSTANDING THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT&#8217;S RULING ON PROP. 8</title>
		<link>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2009/05/28/understanding-the-california-supreme-courts-ruling-on-prop-8/</link>
		<comments>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2009/05/28/understanding-the-california-supreme-courts-ruling-on-prop-8/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frank Schubert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Posts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flashreport.org/blog?p=8383</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[





<p>The California Supreme Court has issued its much anticipated
ruling on the validity of Proposition 8, the constitutional
amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The
Court, by an overwhelming 6-1 vote, upheld the constitutionality of
Proposition 8. Many people view the ruling as being primarily about
the wisdom of allowing gay marriage in California. But whether you
agree or disagree with gay marriage, the ruling was an important
one for those who support the right of voters to initiate laws and
challenge governmental decisions.</p>
<p>At the core of the challenge to Proposition 8 was a challenge to
California’s initiative process itself. Opponents of Prop 8 argued
that this plain-language 14-word amendment constituted an illegal
“revision” of the state Constitution that only the Legislature can
initiate. Prior Court rulings had defined constitutional revisions
to be those proposals that resulted in a fundamental restructuring
of governmental power. How, one might wonder, does a 14 word
proposal that simply inserts the age-old understanding of the
definition of marriage constitute a fundamental restructuring of
government? Fortunately, the Supreme&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2009/05/28/understanding-the-california-supreme-courts-ruling-on-prop-8/'>Read More</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[





<p>The California Supreme Court has issued its much anticipated
ruling on the validity of Proposition 8, the constitutional
amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The
Court, by an overwhelming 6-1 vote, upheld the constitutionality of
Proposition 8. Many people view the ruling as being primarily about
the wisdom of allowing gay marriage in California. But whether you
agree or disagree with gay marriage, the ruling was an important
one for those who support the right of voters to initiate laws and
challenge governmental decisions.</p>
<p>At the core of the challenge to Proposition 8 was a challenge to
California’s initiative process itself. Opponents of Prop 8 argued
that this plain-language 14-word amendment constituted an illegal
“revision” of the state Constitution that only the Legislature can
initiate. Prior Court rulings had defined constitutional revisions
to be those proposals that resulted in a fundamental restructuring
of governmental power. How, one might wonder, does a 14 word
proposal that simply inserts the age-old understanding of the
definition of marriage constitute a fundamental restructuring of
government? Fortunately, the Supreme&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2009/05/28/understanding-the-california-supreme-courts-ruling-on-prop-8/'>Read More</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2009/05/28/understanding-the-california-supreme-courts-ruling-on-prop-8/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My Weekly Rant: The Message Election</title>
		<link>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2009/05/01/my-weekly-rant-the-message-election/</link>
		<comments>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2009/05/01/my-weekly-rant-the-message-election/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frank Schubert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Posts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.flashreport.org/blog?p=8241</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[





<p>California voters (at least some of them) are poised to go to
the polls in a special election in just under three weeks to decide
the fate of five propositions put on the ballot by Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. The key props – 1A through 1E –
are said to be essential to resolving California’s critical budget
shortfall.</p>
<p>According to a new survey by the Field Institute, voters aren’t
buying it.</p>
<p>First, let me say that I have not changed my opinion of the
Field Poll as a historically unreliable source of information on
how voters view pending ballot measures. They have been so far off
on so many issues I have been involved in that I always take their
data with a slab – not a grain – of salt. That said, the trend that
Field is reporting (all of the above measures are trailing badly)
is almost certainly correct and reflects the results of other
recent polling.</p>
<p>That 1A thru 1E appear headed for the trashcan is not the most
interesting finding of the Field Poll. The most interesting finding
is that 72 percent of voters agree that voting down the measures
“will send a message to the governor and state Legislature that
voters are tired of&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2009/05/01/my-weekly-rant-the-message-election/'>Read More</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[





<p>California voters (at least some of them) are poised to go to
the polls in a special election in just under three weeks to decide
the fate of five propositions put on the ballot by Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. The key props – 1A through 1E –
are said to be essential to resolving California’s critical budget
shortfall.</p>
<p>According to a new survey by the Field Institute, voters aren’t
buying it.</p>
<p>First, let me say that I have not changed my opinion of the
Field Poll as a historically unreliable source of information on
how voters view pending ballot measures. They have been so far off
on so many issues I have been involved in that I always take their
data with a slab – not a grain – of salt. That said, the trend that
Field is reporting (all of the above measures are trailing badly)
is almost certainly correct and reflects the results of other
recent polling.</p>
<p>That 1A thru 1E appear headed for the trashcan is not the most
interesting finding of the Field Poll. The most interesting finding
is that 72 percent of voters agree that voting down the measures
“will send a message to the governor and state Legislature that
voters are tired of&hellip; <a href='http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2009/05/01/my-weekly-rant-the-message-election/'>Read More</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2009/05/01/my-weekly-rant-the-message-election/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
