Nurses: Major protest against Schwarzenegger set for Tuesday

[Moooooo]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - On the eve of a major protest against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, representatives of the state's largest nurses union vowed to step up their demonstrations against the Republican governor and his "cynical agenda of brainwashing."

At a news conference Monday, Rose Ann DeMoro of the California Nurses Association predicted that at least 5,000 and possibly as many as 10,000 protesters would be on hand outside the Ritz-Carlton hotel in San Francisco on Tuesday night, where Schwarzenegger will be hosting a major fundraiser on behalf of four major government reform proposals he hopes to qualify for a special election next fall.

While the nurses and members of several public employee unions have been staging noisy protests against the Republican governor for months, DeMoro said she expected the San Francisco demonstration to be the largest yet.

"We will never be able to match the corporations in terms of money, but we have to show him that we object," DeMoro said. "The best way we can do that is to protest. The whole point of the protest is that he's fundraising, not governing."

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/12672007p-13525153c.html

[A18]

Um, politicians aren't supposed to fundraise anymore?

What are the major government reform proposals, BTW?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The special election that Arnold wants will have no campaign laws apply to it. He could take a $10 billion check from Microsoft to spend on that. And he wants that waste of $70 million of taxpayer money election to be held  5 months before the governor race where he runs for re-election.  If it was combined with the November, 2006 election, campaign finance laws would apply, and it would save taxpayers $70 million.

[A18]

Good for him. If you'd repeal the ridiculous campaign finance laws, there wouldn't be a problem.

And of course, he should be able to spend whatever money he can get.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Good for him. If you'd repeal the ridiculous campaign finance laws, there wouldn't be a problem.

And of course, he should be able to spend whatever money he can get.

Curropt corporations like Enron should not be able to spend whatever it takes on propaganda. Of course the taxpayers are already paying for some Arnold propaganda

And the hell my money is going to having an election whose sole pourpose is to help Arnold's political career.

[A18]

Normally I would agree that your money should not go towards this, but because of those finance laws, it's apparently necessary.

You said Microsoft. Now you say Enron. Of course Microsoft should be able to fund politicians; corporations are just groups of people, and what kind of state does not allow the people to fund political campaigns? I certainly agree your state has the right to pass such laws, but if you make exceptions for cases like this, I can't help but applaud when the exception is used.

Again, what are these proposals?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Normally I would agree that your money should not go towards this, but because of those finance laws, it's apparently necessary.

You said Microsoft. Now you say Enron. Of course Microsoft should be able to fund politicians; corporations are just groups of people, and what kind of state does not allow the people to fund political campaigns? I certainly agree your state has the right to pass such laws, but if you make exceptions for cases like this, I can't help but applaud when the exception is used.

Again, what are these proposals?

Why is it necessary? It could be combined with the November 2006 election, save taxpayers  $70 million, and have campaign laws apply to it. No, you don't get it, the corporation can directly give the money. It's not at all like normal campaign laws where only people who work at the corporation can give money, and that's restricted per person. Microsoft couldn't give a $10 billion check to the Bush campaign.

The proposal is some stupid re-districting. What's the point? The Democrats who drew the Congressional districts didn't do much of a gerrymander, they left the bay area with a Republican. How hard is it to eliminate every Republican in the bay area?

[A18]

Well what's the difference if Microsoft gives $10 million or if Microsoft pays someone to then pass the $10 million onward? How do you regulate this sort of thing? It sounds like a not so bad idea that in practice is quite bad.

I thought there was more than one. Anyway, I think the point about the re-districting is to make seats more competitive. Naturally I don't care, since I don't live in California, but that sounds reasonable enough.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well what's the difference if Microsoft gives $10 million or if Microsoft pays someone to then pass the $10 million onward? How do you regulate this sort of thing? It sounds like a not so bad idea that in practice is quite bad.

I thought there was more than one. Anyway, I think the point about the re-districting is to make seats more competitive. Naturally I don't care, since I don't live in California, but that sounds reasonable enough.

Arnold whines about special interests all the time. He should not be able to take millions from curropt corprations. As for the re-districting, it may end up with districts more gerrymandered than they currently are. WTF would the point have been?

[A18]

You know, "corrupt corporation" is not an example of redundancy.

Isn't the proposal to have some independent group draw the districts?