Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A.

Wednesday, May 19, AD 2010

The boycott that Los Angeles is imposing on Arizona has its first victim, the city of Los Angeles itself.

The state of Arizona is about to strike back at L.A. again to defend itself.

A letter written by one of the commissioners of the Arizona Corporate Commission is telling Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to be ready to accept the consequences of his actions:

If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.

Basically Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s bluff has been called.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A.

  • So silly on the part of L.A. and California… a state that one day soon might have to be bailed out by the U.S. government, in part funded by Arizona taxpayers! Frankly the best thing to happen to California is bankruptcy at this point…

    Perhaps if California did not have such outlandish welfare services they would not have severe budget and immigration issues of their own.

  • Man, if only CA would have used those billions of dollars of bond money to gain complete independence from the rest of the nation instead of building huge, inefficient new embryonic stem cell research labs, maybe they wouldn’t be so affected by AZ’s actions.

    As it is, the fact that the silliness has gone as far as it has is worrying.

  • You probably could be right.

    A bankruptcy would be beneficial.

    It would sober up California voters to the fact that the socialist-liberal policies of the past 20 years has been a complete bust.

    And maybe, just maybe, they’ll vote responsible, fiscally conservative politicians into office.

  • When I first read the letter, I thought it was just chest-beating, but now I’m not so sure. I’m sure it would be a last resort, and there would no doubt be serious repercussions, but it is a delight to imagine. For the moment, I think the commissioner is just telling L.A., “Watch it! We can you hurt you!”, and pointing out the city’s hypocrisy in thinking they can start boycott on their terms alone, without any reverse consequenses..

  • Joseph,

    I think you’re right.

    He’s putting L.A. on notice, though the mayor is not balking, so it’ll be interesting how this plays out.

  • It would sober up California voters to the fact that the socialist-liberal policies of the past 20 years has been a complete bust.

    Actually, it’s more of a schizoid situation. We routinely vote in restrictions on new taxes or introduce tax breaks while at the same time voting for expensive projects like high-speed rail.

  • Good for AZ! I read an article the other day too that AZ travelers are canceling plans to destinations that have called for similar ridiculous boycotts, like San Diego. The response? “Oh, its just local politics, please don’t hurt our economy by canceling your plans!”

    What pathetic, whining, sniveling cowards. I hope AZ sticks to every last one of them and makes them pay for the slanders, their race-baiting, their hatred and their ignorance. Teach them humility, Arizona!

  • BTW, Tito, have you seen Archbishop Chaput’s take on the Arizona law?

    It’s very good, and quite balanced.

  • Meanwhile, in a country where one-in-six workers is unemployed or under-employed, the undertaker-in-chief fetes in the white house a man mainly responsible for stealing millions of American jobs and almost bankrupting hundreds of municipalities.

    Truth IS stranger than fiction.

  • JohnH,

    That was a good article.

    Archbishop Chaput for prelate of America!

  • Boycotts are blunt instruments that hurt the innocent with the guilty. I would not support cutting off existing business with Arizona but I would support boycotting any new business. I hope sports leagues blacklist Arizona. I’d love to see New York’s Arizona iced tea company change its name in protest. I want Arizona to learn that the rest of America stands in solidarity with those who are unjustly discriminated against. I want Arizona to learn that the bishops of Arizona know better than bigots about what’s right and wrong.

  • RR,

    The rest of America?

    Over 60% of American’s agree with Arizona’s illegal immigration law.

  • I still want to know what the “flaw” is.

  • Restrained,

    It will be we who teach you that false claims about bigotry will be met with the contempt and disgust that they deserve.

  • The Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power doesn’t merely buy electricity from AZ, it is a part OWNER of two electrical generating plants there. We are only using what we own – this guy needs to get his facts straight.

    When did Christianity become so xenophobic. Do you think Jesus gave a rat’s behind where someone was born (sorry, no loaves and fishes for you – you were born on the wrong side of a man-made line)

  • What in the world is xenophobic about reguiring Mexicans to obey American immigration laws if they wish to live in America? Is it xenophobic of Mexico to expect that Americans will obey Mexican immigration laws if they wish to live in Mexico?

  • You don’t get it, Don. You see, we’re all racists and we don’t know it yet.

    Thankfully, we have MSNBC to let us know what horrible people we are on the inside.

    What Mexicans (legal and illegal for that matter) really should be angry about is how they’re used as political pawns by American politicians. That might ACTUALLY be sort of racist.

    A nation that cannot defend and protect its own physical integrity ceases to be a nation. Americans are perfectly within their rights to expect their state or federal government to enforce the border, and not use it as a backhanded means to manipulate demographics and election outcomes.

  • No Power is about to be shut off to California. I am not sure why people are cheering this own anyway. Regardless I have to imagine that all sort of things comeinto play here such as the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce cause. I also have to imagine since so much of our power comes from all the over place there is already Fed regulation on this

  • “I am not sure why people are cheering this own anyway.”

    Because it helps illustrate what complete buffoons the LA politicians are for calling for a boycott of the State of Arizona. Politicians, and not just in LA, have gotten used to playing the dirty game of identity politics by appealing to ethnic constituents through empty gestures such as this. Now there is pushback and the solons in LA are squealing about it which is vastly amusing.

  • It’s as if they’re saying, “wait, people are taking us seriously? Our words actually mean something?”

  • Liberals are conflating Christianity with “Ali Baba and the 40,000,000 Thieves.”

    I love and pray for all the cloistered marxists that call yourselves social justice advocates.

    Woe unto him who calls evil good.

    PS: If I believed they would comprehend “Marxist/Leninism”, I’d have used that term insetad of “Ali Baba.”

  • “Because it helps illustrate what complete buffoons the LA politicians are for calling for a boycott of the State of Arizona. Politicians, and not just in LA, have gotten used to playing the dirty game of identity politics by appealing to ethnic constituents through empty gestures such as this. Now there is pushback and the solons in LA are squealing about it which is vastly amusing.”

    I just think escalting this is nonsense especially in these bad economic times. People I think will move on from this issue if given time. We have short attentions spans. Also the fact that it appears that

    People actually think AZ can do this is annoying

    That people seem to think it is proper for State to engage in a war with each other
    (Can Louisiana shut off the pipelines of oil and natural gas if we get bad?)

    That people that are proclaiming themselves Federalist think this is a great idea. I MEAN I AM SEEING PEOPLE ACTUALLY wanting this to happen. Why? Because of what some yahoos on the LA City Council did?

    Personally in these days I would prefer that our military assets in San Diego are able to have the lights on.

    This just seems all counterproductive and gets us no where to solving the problem.

  • I guess again it highlights that cities boycotting AZ is also wrong and gets us nowhere. Only punishes hard working people in AZ including the military in Yuma. Really needs to stop.

  • Yeah, the problem is NOT the pushback from the AZ politicians, but the fact that these city governments around the country are engaging in symbolic boycotts.

    Wanna boycott AZ? Then boycott ALL that comes from AZ, even if it means you have to, you know, ACTUALLY make some sacrifices.

    Seriously, the “escalation” isn’t coming from the AZ politicians defending themselves, it’s coming from the grandstanding a-holes threatening to wreck the AZ economy by fomenting a nationwide boycott of the state.

  • Bingo Phillip. All the people of LA have to do is to have their cretinous leaders swallow some crow and simply state that upon reflection maybe calling for a boycott of Arizona wasn’t such a brilliant idea after all.

  • The point is jh that the WHOLE THING is nonsense. LA calls for a boycott in these harsh times and that isn’t irresponsible? That those “yahoos” on the city council are now having to deal with the consequences of their actions is refreshing. Too many politicians shoot their mouths off without regard for the consequences. It’s time they felt the results of their actions.

  • Is a boycott even constitutional? Maybe yes because of freedom of speech. Maybe no because of the interstate commerce clause. Any opinions?

  • Centinel:
    I think boycotts by individuals are generally first amendment protected, but government acts would have to be evaluated under dormant commerce clause jurisprudence.

  • Government boycotts would fall under the market participation exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Daniel Larison, Talking Sense

Monday, December 14, AD 2009

I’ve written about this before, but it’s nice to see Daniel Larison making the point with characteristic clarity in an interview with The Economist:

Iraq was also the policy that turned the public so sharply against President Bush prior to the 2006 mid-term elections, and those elections were and were correctly seen as a rejection of the war and Mr Bush’s handling of it. The war was the main issue of those elections, and the GOP lost control of Congress because it had identified itself completely with the war and its members in Congress continued to be its most vocal defenders. By national-security conservatives, I mean those members of the conservative movement who have a primary and overriding focus on foreign policy and national-security questions, and who typically take extremely hawkish positions. They were the leading advocates and cheerleaders for the invasion. Most movement conservatives supported the policy, but it was the national-security conservatives who drove the party into the ditch while the others went along for the ride.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Daniel Larison, Talking Sense

  • Well, Larison was certainly wrong about the surge which he vehemently opposed and predicted would fail.

    The war in Iraq was quite popular until the casualties began to mount and the Bush administration appeared to have no plan to win the conflict. That is death for popular support of a war. After Rumsfeld was finally dumped, Bush listened to Petraeus and carried out a war-winning plan, but by that time it was too late. I do think however that Republican unpopularity in 2006 had more to do with the accurate perception that Republicans had been profligate in spending in Washington. The Iraq War was a major secondary factor in 2006, but I do not think it played much of a role in 2008, an election in which the economic meltdown in September was devastating to Republicans. Then the Democrats took over the White House with broad majorities in Congress and demonstrated to the Republican amateurs how true pros in wasteful and feckless spending went about things.

  • I have a hard time accepting the idea that deficit spending was a significant factor in 2006. For one thing, the deficit spending was basically half of what it was in 2004 when Bush won re-election, and it was trending downwards in 2005, 2006 and 2007. As the deficit picture was improving, Bush’s approval ratings were sliding.

  • The Iraq War was probably the main reason for the GOP losses, but there were so many factors – scandals, deficits (yeah, they were going down, but the Bush-led GOP was seen as no longer living up to conservative principles economically), an unenergetic base (thanks to the previous point), fall-out from Katrina (which ties in with administrative incompetence in Iraq as well), etc.

  • The problem with blaming Republican defeats on excessive spending is that such spending went on for years and no one really cared. It was only when the party was already hurting because of Iraq that it became an issue.

  • The Republican Party never had but quite modest pluralities in both houses of Congress. With few exceptions, it is the norm for the President’s party to lose ground during midterm elections, most particularly during midterm elections held during a second presidential term (for whatever reason). It would have been a historical oddity had the Republicans retained Congress, without regard to the ambient concerns of the electorate.

    The article to which Mr. McClarey links is instructive. Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Larison’s time in the military approximates that of Madonna Ciccone. All of his formal education has been in pre-modern history or in the liberal arts at an institution which (as we speak) offers one (1) course in either military history or national security studies. The guy must be a hell of an autodidact. I see has been adding to his portfolio skills as a diviner of public opinion as well (and the results of his dowsing are that the general public’s irritation is a precise replica of his own – Frank Luntz, your consulting business is in danger).

  • “The problem with blaming Republican defeats on excessive spending is that such spending went on for years and no one really cared. It was only when the party was already hurting because of Iraq that it became an issue.”

    Much of the Republican base has always cared. Ross Perot used that to devastating effect against George Bush in 1992. George Bush with his “compassionate conservative” spending programs exacerbated the problem. Contra Larison the response to 9-11 and the seeming victory in Iraq in 2003 helped mask this problem in the 2002 and 2004 elections. When Iraq went South, disgruntled Republicans over spending saw no reason to turn out in 2006, and there was great dissatisfaction with McCain in 2008 and his support of the Bailout Swindle of 2008. The tea parties are merely an outward manifestation of a growing concern with fiscal folly that has been building for well over a decade. Republicans ran in 1994 as the party to bring fiscal sanity to Washingon, and initially they did to some extent. The years under Bush convinced too many Republicans that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties on the issue of government spending. The Democrats this year have convinced many of those same Republicans that they were wrong.

  • Find me two people who voted Democrat in 2006 because the Republicans were spending too much.

  • Find me two people who voted Democrat in 2006 because the Republicans were spending too much.

    More likely, it would be people who abstained and added to the plurality of the Democrats by default.

  • Again, I don’t know that it was deficits per se, but rather a feeling that the GOP had lost its way generally on economics issues. As Art Deco noted, the primary impact there was influencing core GOP voters to stay home.

  • Well, maybe, but my guess is that it deficits were more of a second order effect. By 2006, Bush’s approval ratings had tanked, primarily because of Iraq (and Katrina). To say that deficits were the real problem or even a major one requies an explanation for

    1) Why Republican voters did turnout in 2004 when deficit spending was much higher, and why reductions in deficit spending between 04-06 convinced those voters to stay home.

    2) Why Republican voters were so different from the rest of the electorate that it wasn’t Iraq, Katrina, etc that depressed turnout when it pretty clearly was what drove most of the rest of the country.

    There’s not any way to prove this one way or the other, of course. But I think the fiscal irresponsibility account is pretty implausible as a primary driver, even if it undeniably is a first order consideration to a vocal but small contingent on the right (like, for instance, Ron Paul supporters). Most people don’t pay attention to politics much, and that’s certainly true of the deficit.

  • I have a feeling it was more of a “Change” election in 2006 than any one factor. It happens. It does nto seem fair but it is what it is.

    We should also recall in 2006 that “Joe” Lieberman” was target number one over the Iraq war and he won.

    What the various branches of the GOP and the conservative movement really hate to admit is that they were too busy fighting each other and calling each other RINOS. They seemed to have forgot there were democrat challengers. This nasty counterproductive scorched earth policy started happening around the Dubai Port controversy and just got worse. Add to that a few unfortunate scandals and the Washington Post making all out war on the VA GOP Senator and it was a bad day.

    Also another point. WE lost a ton of hispanic vote largely because we could not police our own on a highly emotional debate.

    Did the Iraq war play a role in some places. Perhaps but when I look at some blue dog victories that occured in other places the ansewer is no there.

  • Regarding fall out from Katrina. I really wonder how much that was a factor. I think on the whole the public was much more sophisticated about that. In Louisiana the GOP did not suffer for it from what I can tell. It did not show up in the Congressional races in the last two cycles

  • Larison’s argument assumes that the fiscal and defense conservatives are two separate teams.

    “Most movement conservatives supported the policy, but it was the national-security conservatives who drove the party into the ditch while the others went along for the ride.”

    That sounds like scapegoating. If all the hawks jumped off a bridge, the movement conservatives shouldn’t have followed them. In reality, hawks are movement conservatives. There may be some conservatives who promote military strength, fiscal soundness, or traditional social values more, but there’s too much overlap between their policies to identify many of them as single-issue conservatives.

    Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq didn’t harm the Bush Administration. The apparent failure in Iraq, along with the Mark Foley scandal, added to the natural midterm loss for the president’s party.

    The lack of Republican fiscal high ground was a major cause of their losses in 2008. And again, there weren’t economic conservatives who lost their way, or who are trying to spin old military failures to their advantage. The Party lost its way fiscally.

  • Y’all keep referring to Republican voters and who they voted for, I don’t get it. Republican voters always vote for Republicans. Republicans lose because non-Republican voters who tend to vote for Republican candidates may or may not vote for them depending on what they actually do.

    Iraq could have been over in 18 months if we fought it right. The problem was Rumsfeld and the liberal neo-cons that were extending the conflict for nefarious purposes. Compassionate conservatism was code for spending like Democrats to sway the liberal-leaning Hispanics because they are seen as the future of the party, since it is a forgone conclusion in Republican circles that blacks are lost to the murderous Democrats (responsible for the murder of a third of all conceived Negros over the last 40 years!). ANd white voters are being overrun by brown immigrants and lack of reproduction. This is all conventional thinking and it is wrong.

    Republicans only win by default because they are less bad than the Democrats. Of course a charismatic leader, an orchestrated economic crisis and non-conservative Republican stooge makes for a great way to intentionally lose an election and keep the money rolling in to ‘win’ next time. Gimme a break.

    There is hardly a difference between the two parties and most Americans are so ignorant of the purpose and intent of government that they will vote for the jerks that promise the most stuff or the idiots who promise not to let them, but let them anyway.

    This is a dying system, if it isn’t dead yet. How do the Republicans recover?

    Oddly enough it will be the same way the Church will. Ditch the lying, sniveling, liberal relativism and honestly stick to principles of truth and Truth. Do the right (pun intended) thing especially when it is unpopular. And be doers of the conservative principles.

    Republicans have the same choice to make as the two sons from yesterday’s Gospel reading. Are they going to keep saying the are conservative and act like slightly less liberal Democrats, or are they actually going speak moderately and behave in a principled, conservative manner?

    Republicans lose because they lie, Demoncrats win because they will double your freebies if you vote for them within the next 15 minutes. Call now for more free crap.