In honor of the upcoming Nov. 2 election, The Collegian’s editors voted on candidates and propositions on this year’s ballot. The following recommendations are the results of our “mock” election.
GOVERNOR
Meg Whitman
The next governor of California will have to make tough decisions to get the state’s budget back into the black. The Collegian doesn’t feel that Jerry Brown, whose relationship with public employee unions has been described by The Fresno Bee as “intimate,” is up to the task. Meg Whitman, because of her tremendous business experience, looks to be the one who can get our state’s economy out of the doldrums.
U.S. SENATE
Carly Fiorina
Barbara Boxer is a liberal partisan who, in the last weeks of her campaign, has touted her abortion record as a reason why people should vote for her. This shows how out of touch the three-term senator is. Our next senator should put Californians first, not partisan ideology. Fiorina will do that.
PROPOSITIONS
PROP 19 ”” NO
The legalization of marijuana would cause more problems than it would solve. There is no certainty that it would bring in a sizable amount of revenue, it would be a nightmare for businesses and is difficult to test for driving under the influence laws. The Collegian recommends a “no” vote on Prop 19.
PROP 20 ”” NO
This measure would give the power to draw lines in the state to a 14-member commission instead of to the legislature. California has many problems””its district lines is not one of them. This proposition is a waste of money and should not be passed.
PROP 21 ”” YES
California is one of the most beautiful states in the union. Prop 21 would help keep us that way by increasing revenues for maintenance in state parks by adding $18 onto vehicle registration fees. We support this reasonable measure.
PROP 22 ”” YES
If we pay taxes because of something like hotels, transportation and public safety, those taxes should benefit that which we are paying taxes for. This proposition makes that idea law. The Collegian supports it.
PROP 23 ”” YES
Prop 23 suspends AB 32, which requires state greenhouse gas emissions to return to 1990 levels by 2020, until the state’s unemployment rate is 5.5 percent. The bill, passed in 2006, strives to combat global warming, but will cost gobs of money and jobs while having a negligent impact on global warming. California jobs must come first. The Collegian supports this measure.
PROP 24 ”” NO
California is one of the most heavily taxed states in the country. If this measure is passed, three tax breaks for businesses would end. We should try to encourage businesses to come to our state; this law would discourage them. The Collegian rejects this measure.
PROP 25 ”” NO
If Prop 25 were to pass, budgets could be passed without input from the minority party. This would be highly detrimental to the state. California needs to keep the two-thirds majority.
PROP 26 ”” YES
This bill would require a two-thirds vote for the state legislature to pass new fees, levies and charges. It should be difficult to raise Californians fees. They should have broad measures of support. For this reason, we support Prop 26.
PROP 27 ”” YES
This proposition eliminates the 14-member commission created in 2008 that would, if Prop 20 passed, have the power to draw the state’s district lines. This would eliminate yet another unnecessary bureaucracy. We recommend a “yes” vote.
REPRESENTATIVES
18TH DISTRICT
Michael Berryhill
Berryhill will fight for the Central Valley and try to fix this area’s water issue in Congress. That’s good enough for us.
20TH DISTRICT
Andy Vidak
The 20th district has been one of the hardest hit areas in the state, with its unemployment hovering around 15 percent. Change is needed, and Vidak brings that change.
19TH DISTRICT
Jeff Denham
In his time as a state senator, Denham was a vigorous fighter for balanced budgets, something Washington D.C. is in need of at the moment.
21ST DISTRICT
Devin Nunes
Nunes is running unopposed.
Andrew Nef • Oct 26, 2010 at 11:24 pm
I’m conservative, agree with many of their decisions yet still thought the piece was garbage. At best it was unnecessary. Hopefully the shock of a collegiate newspaper actually recommending a “no” vote on prop. 19 is enough to get those who read this article to actually study up on the rest of the propositions. But seeing as how most of the students I know that are ignorant of these issues are also ignorant to the existence of the Collegian….I highly doubt that.
Gilbert Felix • Oct 26, 2010 at 7:26 am
The Collegian editorial board has clearly demonstrated utter disrespect for Fresno State student’s intelligence with their ill-informed political “recommendations.” Never before have I seen such ignorance and arrogance blatantly scribbled in a newspaper aimed at young people on a college campus.
The Fresno Bee, although not my news media of choice, made commendable and well thought out endorsements/recommendations last week; the paper encourages Valley residents to vote for 12 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Their editorial board gives a thumbs-up to Jerry Brown for governor because of his unparalleled experience in California politics. They also note that Jim Costa “has earned re-election” because of his stellar service. For you editors who aspire to pursue a career in print or on-line journalism should take a cue from your hometown paper and actually use your brain when making political “recommendations.”
The editors can defend their “recommendations” as a simple op-ed but the influence this piece will have on busy, working, uniformed students is truly disheartening. Shame on the entire editorial board.
Concerned Alum • Oct 26, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Guess what, Gil, just because an opinion happens to be different than yours doesn’t mean that it is an ill-informed, “ignorant” recommendation. Do you want to know why republicans get pissed at dems so often? It’s because you talk down to people that have legitimate ideas and concerns.
Anonymous • Oct 25, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Let it be known that these results were compiled strictly from the EDITOR’S selections and not the entire Collegian staff. I work at the Collegian, but my opinions on the various props and candidate selections are significantly different. However, I am not an editor. Technically I’m not even suppose to post comments on the website because of my position.
Nevertheless, I think it is important to know that the entire Collegian staff is not conservative. We have other positions (like non-paid writers and multimedia positions) that may have different opinions. It is annoying when people bash the Collegian as a whole.
Also remember that this article is listed under OPINION.
What is this crap? • Oct 26, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Well it is the Collegian that printed this garbage while everyone else on the staff was passive. Yes the article is under Opinion, by why is there only on side of Opinions? Where all the other writers sitting on there ass sucking each others thumb? Your passive personality and defense is weak. People that just sit back and let anything be written on there newpaper are just as bad as the people who write it.
Anonymous • Oct 26, 2010 at 8:12 pm
1. It was a poll given to the EDITORS, not the entire staff. Don’t call us passive when we weren’t given an option in the matter to voice our opinion.2. The outcome is based on a poll given to the editors. It looks like all the editors have a conservative opinion on politics. So what? Everyone has a different opinion than you, get over it.3. It’s “were” not “where.” The same goes for “there” when it should be “their.”4. My defense is valid. I wasn’t aware of the piece until it was already written. You can’t call someone passive on something if they didn’t know of its existence. It’s similar to saying people in African tribes are going to hell because they don’t know about Christianity.P.S. Don’t use profanity. It’s in the rules. Also, if you want to write about your opinion here is a nifty little link: http://collegian.csufresno.edu/about/letter-to-the-editor/Now stop being so passive and get your voice in the paper with a letter to the editor.
Melissa Mata • Oct 25, 2010 at 8:33 pm
When did the Collegian become a public relations firm for republicans?
You should make it known to students and the campus community that the editorial staff at the Collegian is largely conservative and therefore these “recommendations” hold no credence. If I wanted to hear or read conservative sound bites, I would watch Fox News or read the Drudge Report.
Political novices, like members of the Collegian editorial staff, should not be making electoral recommendations. Not only are your “recommendations” comical, but using the Collegian as a form of propaganda for your overtly conservative views is a disservice to students.
Concerned Alum • Oct 26, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Funny how nobody complains when they collegian sides with liberals. Which is what the collegian did every year I was in undergrad, and I never saw you, Melissa Mata, complain about their recommendations did.
Diesel • Oct 25, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Good input!
Anonymous • Oct 25, 2010 at 7:58 am
Yup what I thought, mostly a batch of republicans typical for this part of the state. No wonder I disagree with the collegian so much.
“The legalization of marijuana would cause more problems than it would solve.”
Tell that to all the people hurt or put in harms way by the violence associated with smuggling cannibus into the country because of the inevitable demand and all the people locked up for the non-violent offense of having the audacity to choose to put a substance into their body on their own time without hurting others. I think this a freedom we deserve. I don’t buy this vague fear mongering of it’d ‘be a nightmare for businesses’ or that it will cause chaos with an outbreak of people driving under the influence of cannibus. Tons of people are already responsibly smoking cannibus and can do their jobs and live their life just fine. You can take these lame excuses to stick to your outdated ideology and shove it you-know-where.
Concerned Alum • Oct 26, 2010 at 11:27 pm
First of all, legalizing pot is going to have virtually no effect on the illicit CANNABIS trade. Just because it is legal in one state doesn’t mean that the demand in the other 47 states is going to magically disappear. Thus, legalizing pot is not going curb violence in virtually any way.
Let me say, I am all for cannabis legalization, but the majority of the pro-legalization arguments that I hear are entirely irrational. Pot is not going to solve budget deficits, pot is not going to stop violence, pot is not going to put drug dealers out of business. There will still be an underground market for pot, so children will still have easy access to it (another common argument).
There are a number of problems that legalization of pot would create, and yes, for the foreseeable future, the problems would outweigh the benefits. First, just because pot is legal doesn’t mean that on Nov. 3rd every prisoner is going to magically be released. There will be appeals and perhaps a giant congestion on the courts. In addition, there is the fact that the Fed gov’t has vowed to enforce the Fed prohibition of pot. They will undoubtedly try to make an example out of CA, and many people will go to jail. Also, there are conditions to states accepting Fed funding, one of which is maintaining a drug enforcement policy. There have been estimates that the legalization of Pot will force the state to lose out on over 10 billion dollars of federal funding. In a time when the state is effectively broke, this is not an option. There are a ton of other issues that legalization also brings, but I’m tired of writing.
Ultimately, I believe that legalized pot will be a good thing, but legalization proponents are doing the legalization movement a huge disservice by not admitting that there will be serious problems resulting from legalization.
Anonymous • Oct 27, 2010 at 3:27 am
Well, of course a change in California won’t change the world, but if localized progress is made and reported it might push other places to do similar things (I think a few states have similar propositions on the ballot this election) and sitting around waiting for change on this issue at federal level in this political climate is fairly silly at this point. I think you are reading too much into my response which was very specific to the article and probably a bit reactionary, and I don’t have much objections to your comment except to say I’m looking at it in a more long term vision and there may have been some lack of communication on that front. Lots of changes have short term (relatively speaking) problems, but I don’t want it to be used by the opposition as an excuse to stay on a failing course that, for many individuals, is worse. Anywho to try to sum up, my personal objection to the illegality of cannibus isn’t stemmed on some idealized version of the proposition that making it legal in California will solve all problems on our continent, but it’s stemmed in a principle of personal freedom and I think we need to fight for it and make our disagreement with the illegality of cannibus heard. If the opposition had the same objections that you stated and perhaps suggested a different path to legalizing cannibus in the US, perhaps I’d say it hurts our cause not to focus on the short term issues, but I don’t think they want cannibus to be legal anywhere ever so it’s not relevant. That conversation can be had between people like you and me.