President Obama takes a dump on California

With the Obama administration continuing an all-out war against medical marijuana in California, despite overwhelming support for it amongst the voters, it seems clear that the Obama campaign has done the electoral math and figured that there’s no possible way that California goes to Santorum or Romney, so Obama has already banked the 55 electoral votes.

President Obama could recall his drones from Pakistan and start strafing homeless shelters in San Francisco and the California liberals would dutifully line up and vote Democratic (how else do you explain Feinstein?)

Californians should feel, at the very least, a bit betrayed. No, they should be royally pissed off. And yet, the President of the United States is standing there, swaggering, pointing his finger at them and taunting: “Oh yeah? What are you going to do about it? Vote Santorum?”

If Californians can’t find the cojones to make a protest vote with Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, then they should have the decency to stay home on election day, because while President Obama may not care much about a low turnout, the Democratic Party eventually will.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to President Obama takes a dump on California

  1. allan says:

    No change? No vote. NObama!

  2. goblet says:

    santomneygrich is no different than obama – it’s like there is some strange force giving us crap that is considered “electable”, despite the delegates Paul is gathering (myself included – state delegate for NV…)

    • christy says:

      that strange force is called money originating from big PAT (pharma, alcohol, tobacco) and other special interest groups.

  3. allan says:

    santomneygrinch… nice… pretty well sums that circus act up.

  4. Peter says:

    how to explain feinstein? lets not forget boxer

  5. Mr. Ikashini says:

    Not smart! First order; fire Michelle Leonhart. CUNT! How would history judge if one to even spit in her direction. Don’t look for the residents at Bedford Hills Albion or Terminal Island to kiss her ring finger soon.

  6. Cy Klebs says:

    So whose stopping you! A serious candidate would speak out about the rising yellow tide of pee testing beloved in the gop. What have I missed. All I hear or read from RP is the ocean!

  7. Duncan20903 says:

    All your other grades just don’t matter, one F and you’re no flippin’ genius.

  8. Ayuh says:

    “the Democratic Party eventually will.”

    What if they had an election and nobody voted?

  9. kaptinemo says:

    “Think of it as evolution in action.”

    I would think that Californians (and any State with MMJ laws) are also doing the political calculus. The results must be anything but optimistic.

    The liberal/progressives were betrayed by the closet NeoCon Obama. Betrayed. It’s that simple. It cannot possibly be any clearer than that. And they continue to be betrayed by the Democratic Party machine. The machine, like its’ Republican counterpart, is so wholly wedded to The Money Power that it cannot possibly change course without the stresses involved tearing it apart. The Money Power gets its’ moxie from essentially two things: oil and banking. And banking gets its’ moxie from laundering dirty drug money.

    Which is why reform is an uphill battle all the way, because we’re carrying the prohibs on our shoulders, kicking and screaming, slapping our heads and trying to gouge our eyes, every step of the way…and on top of them are the real powers funding and manipulating them. The same powers they accuse us of being in league with; the irony would be delicious if it didn’t involve blood from the innocents slaughtered by the shutter-brained, zeal-poisoned ‘righteous’ in their ignorant prosecution of their real master’s agenda.

  10. Duncan20903 says:

    I wonder if anyone will ever be interested in forming a voting block. It seems like all people can see is the coming election, and god forbid the guy they think needs to be defeated should win.

  11. This is why competitive primaries are so important.Obama is dead right that liberals aren’t going to vote for the Republican no matter how badly he screws them.

    The only realistic way for liberals/progressives to punish Obama would be through a primary challenge. Obviously it’s too late for this election cycle, but this is a weapon that voters should make more use of.

    • Windy says:

      Actually there is a voting block of disillusioned Democrats who have decided to vote for Ron Paul, they call themselves the Blue Republicans.

  12. Ed Dunkle says:

    Obama has been campaigning for the “undecided” middle part of the political spectrum since day one. I see very little enthusiasm for Obama in my part of California. But the last time a Republican won California was in 1988, and it has been trending bluer ever since.

    • Peter says:

      but why do they keep electing neocons like feinstein and boxer? does becoming bluer mean defaulting to bluedogs every time?

      • undrgrndgirl says:

        i wish i had an explanation…other than the old democrats out here like their familiar old democrats…and much of california’s population is old in 2007 10% of california’s population was over age 50 (i imagine now that number is higher) and they do most of the voting. i won’t vote for pelosi, feinstien, eshoo, or any of the other old guard. but my 80 year old mother thinks they are still the cat’s pajamas…and she likes voting for women and particularly for women supported by the league of women voters and emily’s list. i think the u.s. needs an age maximum for government officials in addition to the minimum…

  13. darkcycle says:

    Not all of the pledges will grab their ankles and sing “Thank you, Sir, may I have another” this time. For many many liberals, myself included, the induced “fear of Santorum” will NOT be enough to cause us to mark the “Obama” slot on the ballot. I will vote based on the policies I support or oppose, not the fear of the unknown. I will not sit peacefully in this pot with the other frogs while we are slowly boiled alive.

    • Windy says:

      Santorum and Gingrich are not going to get the GOP nomination, no matter how long they stay in the race. They are there only to keep Ron Paul as close to invisible as possible and to steal delegates that otherwise might go to Dr. Paul. So the real race is between Romney and Paul. Paul has the better economic plan ( and the better foreign policy, and he is the only one who actually knows, respects and follows the Constitution in everything he has done in government. If he wins the nomination, there is little doubt in my mind that he would win over the hearts and votes of the American people. Once the people get a taste of what it is like to live under a president who actually obeys the Constitution, I suspect they will be pressuring their “representatives” in congress to do the same. This is the direction we really need to go, any other direction and we will see our society collapse with my lifetime (if I’m lucky another 30 years, but then if Ron Paul doesn’t win I’m not sure I want to live to see that collapse).

  14. Cannabis says:

    When did Kevin Sabet become the go to guy for quotes? This AP story Federal agents raid Calif. marijuana university quotes him as saying

    “This is a warning signal to any city including Oakland that they should tread very carefully when sanctioning an illegal activity,” said Kevin Sabet, a former senior adviser to the president’s drug czar and an assistant professor at the University of Florida. “The brazenness of Oakland and other cities like this has actually made them a target.”

    It’s almost like ONDCP turned him loose just so he could make statements like this.

    • kaptinemo says:

      “Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.”

      You’ve got it exactly. This is the right-wing-welfare in operation. In this time of universal fiscal tightening, the Feds are still giving ‘grants’ of taxpayer-funded money to the various cat’s-paws groups that ‘sing’ their ‘song’, and that’s why Sabet is still in operation after ‘leaving’ ONDCP.

      The money trails need to be investigated to find out just how much ‘infrastructure’ is in operation, here.

    • Matthew Meyer says:

      Sounds like Sabet, who should know, is admitting that Lee was targeted not for his kingpin status, but for his political speech.

  15. undrgrndgirl says:

    this californian votes 3rd party…almost any 3rd party as a protest and also to keep 3rd party percentages up so they can remain on our ballots.

    • Jeff Trigg says:

      Under California’s new Top Two system, you will likely never see another third party candidate on the November election ballot, except for President. Sorry. In fact, in many districts you will be lucky to see two parties on your ballot as both candidates will be Democrats.

      Top Two has already killed 3rd parties in Washington state, and in November we will see the same in CA. Except for President, there will probably not be a third party on the ballot this November in CA. No independents either, as the CA Top Two system bans anyone from saying they are an independent on the ballot. And they are banning all write-in votes in CA as well. Top Two basically means vote for the establishment picked, endorsed, and funded Democrat or don’t vote at all.

      I’m sorry you no longer have a democracy in CA, I tried to stop it, then moved out.

      • Jeff, I think you’re seriously mistaken about the top-two primary system. Right now, in most states, an incumbent legislator is more likely to die in office than to get voted out. Districts are drawn to ensure a solid majority for Team Red or Team Blue and party rules ensure that no candidate can even get on the primary ballot without the backing of the party bosses.

        The top-two primary system allows ANYONE to mount a primary challenge, regardless of party registration. Want to represent Washington in Congress? Pay $1740 or submit primary petitions with sufficient signatures and your name will appear on the primary ballot. A run for the state legislature will set you back $421 (in lieu of primary petitions). You can declare any party preference you like.

        Your assertion that top-two has “killed 3rd parties” is baseless. There were no 3rd parties in the state legislature prior to 2010 (the first election employing the top-twor primary system) and there aren’t any now.

        However, 3rd-party candidates, representing the Conservative, Constitution, and Bull Moose parties (as well as unaffiliated), advanced to the general election in 6 out of 123 races. So, instead of just picking off 1 or 2% of the votes from one of the major-party candidates, these 3rd-party candidates got to go head-to-head with one opponent, and most of them managed to grab 15-25% of the general election votes.

        Personally, I think that a few 3rd-party candidates pulling in a big chunk of the vote has a bigger impact than a bunch of 3rd-party candidates garnering a few percent each. It’s certainly reasonable to hold the opposite view, but your assertion that top-two has killed off 3rd parties in Washington is dead wrong.

        • Jeff Trigg says:

          I am not wrong on the evil top two incumbent protection system. 6 out of 123, where all 6 only had one opponent is not something to point to as success. In 2000, the Libertarian Party alone had 30 candidates on the general election ballot in WA, when people really pay attention and vote. I believe there were over 50 alternatives on that 2000 election ballot. Now its down to 6 and only in districts where one R or D filed. Without looking I’ll say there are 0 for federal office. And we will soon see the effect on CA third parties and independents. Washington and California are not using the same ballot access systems, as Washington is a bit better on ballot labels. CA bans independents from calling themselves that and bans write-in votes.

          Gerrymandering is not solved by top two. Incumbency for life is not solved by top two. Top two solves nothing and creates higher barriers for other parties, which is why every “other” party opposes top two. Every “other” party opposes top two. I don’t see how you can claim it is better for them. Perhaps you don’t care, which is the most common reason people support top two.

          If you want non-partisan elections, top two doesn’t do it. If you want to end gerrymandering, top two doesn’t do it. If you want to end incumbency protection, top two doesn’t do it. If you want to keep independents and third parties off the general election ballots, top two will do that, like it has reduced third parties by more than 90% since 2000 in WA.

          The first round of voting isn’t a primary, btw, but its easier to call it that. Top two puts more power into party bosses hands as they make back room deals and schemes to shape who is on the ballot for their party. The Chair of the WA Democrats freely admits this. Top two doesn’t solve anything except reducing the involvement of “other” candidates in our general elections and reducing our choices to only two.

  16. NorCalNative says:

    Pete, you’re absolutely right to question the mental agility of California liberals.

    If liberal means using the “lesser-of-two-evils” voting method, then count me out.

    Obama is probably correct to assume California is in the bag, however, this life-long Democrat will NOT reward this administration with a vote in 2012.

    I’m prepared to let the Republican-Clown-Show take over California if that’s what it takes to get the Democratic Party to wake the fuck up.

    • Swooper420 says:

      So, because you’re not happy with Obama (who is?), you’re gonna screw California by letting the wingnuts be in charge….talk about the loonies in charge of the Nuthouse. We’re still stuck between Obama or one of the crazy Rethuglians. Same thing in local & state elections… rethuglians get in to power and they try to roll back middle class ideals to the 1800’s. The rethuglians have gone off into the deep end of the pool and are gonna drag down anyone who tries to save them.

      E.G.>> Rethuglian statements that flat out say “we will oppose Obama & his plans no matter what it does to the country”. They’re acting like little children throwing tantrums so they get their own way, or at least disrupt everyone else’s life.

      Yes, voting Gary Johnson is a good ‘moral’ vote – but we have to play the game as it’s rigged, not as we’d like it to be. He (or RP) has the chance of a tissue paper dog in hell of winning, so basically it’s a Rethuglian vote.

      For too long we’ve had to hold our noses & vote for the ‘least of 2 evils’. A good third party candidate would need to start now to set up a grass roots organization in time for 2016. This election, a third party vote hurts progressives.

      • Jeff Trigg says:

        Good, they need to be hurt, “progressives” are just as evil as “Rethuglians”, and in some cases even more so. All votes are moral. Thank you for demonstrating just how evil and dangerous the modern “progressive” agenda is with your willingness to win at all costs regardless of the morals of how your vote damages the freedom of other human beings.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        I wonder if anyone will ever be interested in forming a voting block. It seems like all people can see is the coming election, and god forbid the guy they think needs to be defeated should win.

  17. darkcycle says:

    No, Swooper, we do not have to vote for the “lesser of two evils”. In this case the evil perpetuated is the false belief that we have to choose one or the other. They are two faces on the same head.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      The really, really sad thing is that Swooper doesn’t have a clue how he’s been manipulated.

  18. free radical says:

    Don’t complain too long, there is work to be done. The legalization initiative in California is doomed to failure, without your help! This is the time for action, not more words! Stand up! This is the tipping point we’ve waited for! Don’t wait for someone else to do it for you! Join the effort! Give it everything you can!

    • Duncan20903 says:


      I wouldn’t waste a red cent funding an initiative that doesn’t have the proverbial snowball’s chance in Hell of winning. If you were really interested in progress you’d have supported Regulate Marijuana Like Wine 2012 instead of splintering the base of support.

      We’re never going to get an unfettered re-legalization initiative to pass. You people just don’t seem to understand the reality of the situation. You get up on your high horse and pound away at you extremist dream world as if it could ever be reality and in doing so, you empower the prohibitionists. You may as well be asking for donations to the ONDCP.

      I will be sending a check to support I-502 in Washington and Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Colorado. The best I could do for you guys is a box of fresh dog turds.

      I wish you the worst of luck in your efforts.


      • darkcycle says:

        I’m with you Duncan…the chances of 502 have been hurt badly by pie-in-the-sky dolts and self interested profiteers happy with the status quo. I briefly hoped the Federal raids would show these “businessmen” that their only safety lies in legalization and regulation. But I have despaired of that possibility, short term profits will beat out long term sustainability every time. Those folks are no better than the cartels, and they have cast their lot in with them, having identified the regime of criminalization as critical to their profits. I get more frustrated every time I hear some pothead argue that we shouldn’t vote for 502 because it’s not good enough. They are arguing that a jail cell and a ruined life are preferable to freedom to use marijuana responsibly. That that cell and ruined life may be theirs tomorrow doesn’t seem to register.

        • Duncan20903 says:


          I still recall back in 2010 on ICMag there was a fellow who railed against passage of Prop 19 who did get raided. It didn’t stop him so even that reality won’t necessarily make these people stop. One does have to admire such devotion to principle no matter how misplaced.

          Remember all the 18, 19, and 20 year olds who voted against Prop 19 2010 because of the age 21 restrictions? I wonder how they’re going to feel about that now that they’re 20, 21, and 22 but no “better” law to vote into existence, or even to bitch about its shortcomings.

          Perhaps I’m wrong but I still think that the restrictions written into I-502 and Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol will generate a lot more Yes votes from fence sitting outsiders than it loses to extremist potheads voting no. Fingers crossed, we shall see.

    • Windy says:

      For WA State voters.
      Jared Allaway writes of I-1223:
      This measure would eliminate most civil and criminal penalties for marijuana-related offenses involving only persons twenty-one years or older. It would retain or revise penalties for marijuana-related offenses involving persons younger than twenty-one, with exceptions for marijuana provided for medical or religious purposes, or by parents to their children. It would make assistance by state employees with certain federal enforcement of marijuana laws a misdemeanor, and limit use of THC blood tests in criminal prosecutions.

      • darkcycle says:

        …and it can’t pass. It just realistically has no effing chance. One commercial and it’s dead in the water. Hell, one billboard on I-90. I can see it now: “I-1223 lets addicts give narcotics to their children” ….boom. Gone with all our future chances. People remember this stuff.

  19. Duncan20903 says:


    While Obama’s Thugs Raid Marijuana School, People Die
    Posted: 04/ 3/2012 5:46 pm

    Neill Franklin
    Executive Director, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)

    As I sit and watch video after video of Monday’s senseless federal raid of Oaksterdam University and other medical cannabis-related facilities managed by Richard Lee, the orchestrator of California’s historic Proposition 19, a few serious concerns come to mind.

Comments are closed.