""""During the last debate Meg Whitman showed how "populist" she was by bragging she'd campaigned "out there" three or four times a week and had spoken to a truck driver. Presumably this was more often than Jerry Brown. Jerry did nothing for months --relying on name recognition and old standby contributors--teachers and public employee unions. Meg relied on the vast pile of money she'd siphoned off her E-bay fencing operation and fat cat peers who expect to benefit with tax breaks. The moment the debate ended TV viewers were assaulted by strident ads making precisely these points--Meg portrayed with piles of cash and laid off employees, Jerry the professional politician beholden to public worker unions. Not the slightest indication of any "real" support for either: no student groups, no community organizations, no grass roots whatsoever. How different this election would have been if Jerry Brown had built his campaign around a voter registration drive.
"Remaking California" wants to ask "cui bono"---who benefits from the present stalemate? One way to answer this question is to ask who spent most of the $1 billion dollars lobbied into Sacramento in the past decade? 50 per centof this money came from teachers and public employee unions, pharmaceutical industries, and Indian casinos--and these are all booming businesses. For Jeff Lustig , the answer is corporate interests, the wealthy, the exploiters of the public realm. At book meetings discussing Lustig’s collection people want to add "public employees" and their unions --an answer that Jeff is reluctant to hear. (He says he objected to panelists blaming public employee unions alone, exclusively, as the beneficiaries of the deadlock; as if public employee unions were the authors of this long-running disaster, without any thought to the benefits reaped by, say, oil interests contesting a royalty tax, development interests, commercial property (contesting market-based valuations for property tax evaluations) etc.""""
Jodl or Zhukov: whose side you on, ese