• kesmarn : I’ll bid you good night, too, AdLib and c’lady. To be continued… x

  • AdLib : Night Choicelady and Kesmarn! I will email everyone tomorrow to recap!!! x

  • AdLib : CL – Yes to all you mentioned. I think all this would be needed even with a single item prop as corps and the CoC would oppose any restriction harshly. x

  • choicelady : Let’s keep this ball rolling indeed! Thank you all. Sleep well, and sweet dreams! x

  • choicelady : AdLib – I did not clearly answer your question. A proposition with lots of moving parts tends to produce confusion for voters. Not always – see my reference to Prop. 13 – but often, and usually. So if we do this, we will need to team up with Lakoff and other smart messaging people to get the word clear. AND we will need Hollywood types, paid ads with cool slogans, and anything to make it EASY to vote YES on our measure. x

  • AdLib : Well, it is getting late, shall we wrap it up for tonight and continue on this exciting course tomorrow? x

  • AdLib : Especially after the economic crash and wages being depressed? x

  • AdLib : CL – Gotcha. When you mention that it would have to ride a wave of voter anger, who but extremist Repubs are going to vote against Corporate responsibility? x

  • kesmarn : c’lady, do you think there would be an advantage to picking the one change that would be our highest priority and focussing on that one in the short term? x

  • choicelady : AdLib – by “fatal” I mean too confusing for voters. If soemthing is not clear, and I think we could MAKE it clear with Lakoff helping on the message, people will vote NO because they don’t understand it. x

  • AdLib : Patsy – I’ll check out your post to fix the graphics! x

  • AdLib : CL – So when you mentioned how it would likely be fatal, did you mean a prop with many provisions vs. a single provision? x

  • kesmarn : I like the title, c’lady. I hope we can get the wish list in. x

  • choicelady : Good night Patsy – all strength to you for tomorrow! x

  • choicelady : kes and AdLib – I bet we could work it all into one initiative as noted “Corporate Accountability and Taxpayer Fairness Act” that would include all or almost all of our wish list. It’s just REALLY tricky to write. We will need help. x

  • kesmarn : Good night, Patsy. Sleep well. You’ve been fighting the good fight for hours now! x

  • AdLib : Thanks Patsy! Rest well, good work on the Teacher front! x

  • AdLib : Right! x

  • PatsyT : Friends I must say goodnight. We have had a battle royal with our local school board and I am all tired out… AdLib I hope there is a way to fix the pics on my post I can not seem to make them line up. I tried it all, maybe I am just to tired. This was a great Idea to night and I hope to have more energy next time. Thanks all. x

  • choicelady : AdLib – I’m not saying don’t do it. I am saying we need to know what we’re in for. But if we can get help from the Center for Corporate Responsibility, and other folks, it just may be very doable. It’s actually no worse than Prop. 13 in 1978 – that was a very complex bill that totally screwed over the people voting for it, and they read no further than – control your property tax rates. Little did they know they concentrated power in the Capitol and took it from the local governments. So if we do the corporate accountability and taxpayer fairness act… : ) x

  • kesmarn : I hear you, AdLib, but you’d be amazed at how many of them throw out the story that they’re “independents. ” My eye! As you say, where were they during the Bush Regime. They are Repubs, even if they refuse to see it themselves. x

  • AdLib : CL – So the question is, can some of these provisions be seen as under the umbrella of a single topic? x

  • kesmarn : Ouch. That’s a wee bit discouraging. So each idea would have to be a separate prop? x

  • AdLib : Kes – I don’t think so, most Baggers are Republicans. This is not a legit group, it is astroturf financed by FreedomWorks, Koch and other corps. So I don’t buy the MSM BS that they are a 3rd party. Where were they when Bush was violating all their “principles”. x

  • choicelady : AdLib – glad you asked because the law limits ALL propositions to SINGLE topics. So we are going to have to pick ONE of these things. The only way around is to have a very complex initiative with “California corporate reform act” with subsets of controls on corporations, and for that we will need a very cool, progressive, and, I hope, low cost corporate knowledgeable lawyer. That IS one way to do it, and it is usually fatal since unless we ride a golden wave of voter anger, these don’t get signed and do tend to fail. Lots and lots of dead unsigned circulated petitions in the landfills…. x

  • kesmarn : Just to briefly address the binary thinking issue: I think they actually believe they’re voting for the “3d Way.” They’re not happy with either party and they think the T-Party is the answer. Don’t they get it that it’s warmed over far-right Republican Party standard fare? x

  • AdLib : CL – That doesn’t mean they’ve learned critical thinking. I think it’s self evident that they didn’t. And a college diploma doesn’t mean what it used to. Bush was a Harvard grad. x

  • AdLib : Cl – One question, do you know if it’s cool for a prop to have a variety of provisions as we’re discussing? x

  • PatsyT : kes I am going to have to use that x

  • choicelady : AdLib – but aren’t the baggers actually fairly well educated and older and slightly more affluent than the rest of the nation? I guess I’m back to: can’t fix stupid. x