
Jenny EriksonWhile much of the country rejoices in last night's GOP wins (Hello Senator-Elect Rubio!), California conservatives weep. Jerry Brown was elected, Barbara Boxer won, prop 23 failed -- and pot wasn't legalized, so we can't even dull the pain with a reefer.
Jerry Brown is entering his third term as California Governor (he was elected in 1974 and reelected in 1978). Due to grandfathering laws, he was (unfortunately) eligible to run again in this cycle. Given his experience, it should be easy to see what kind of governor he will be over the next four years.
In eight years as governor, Jerry Brown managed to turn a $6 billion surplus into a $1 billion deficit, did serious damage to our education system, and watched the unemployment rate soar under his leadership. In 1992, he admitted that he lied about everything as a politician, and in 2010, he refused to condemn someone from his office for calling opponent Meg Whitman a whore. He believes that raising taxes and imposing business-crippling mandates will save California.
Socialism worked so well in Cuba. Or was it the USSR? Venezuela? Bueller?
As for Barbara Boxer ... what can I say? She's one of the most liberal members of the Senate. She's an elitist that cares more about trees and smelts than people.
And prop 23 failed to pass. It would've suspended California's very own cap & tax law, AB 32, until unemployment could be reduced to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. Obviously, the best way to save the environment is to drive all businesses out of California. Why don't we all go back to the days of horse drawn buggies, when manure was piled on the streets? Remember, trees are more important than people!
In other California news, San Francisco hates children. The board of supervisors voted Tuesday to limit toys in children's meals to those that meet certain nutritional guidelines. That's right -- San Francisco banned Happy Meals. Meanies.
Voting might be over for this year, but there's still one thing to bet on: How long until California completely collapses?
Image via Tech Askew
Do People Who Have Kids Deserve Special Treatment?
Controversy: Gwen Stefani Bleaches Her Son's Hair
A '50 Shades of Grey' Shortcut for Busy Moms
Latest on Baby in Washing Machine Case (VIDEO)
Are People Who Eat Organic Judgy & Mean?
A Dad's Perspective on Playdates
Bagged Salad Recall Sparks New Fears
Help Dying 4-Year-Old Fulfill His Bucket List (VIDEO)
Melissa McCarthy & Sandra Bullock's Buddy Cop Movie
Do Working Moms Have It Easy?
Your Morning Coffee Could Save Your Life
Join the Fight Against Toxic Kids' Products
8 Summery Sweet Popsicles You Can Make at Home
Guy Gets Chest Waxed on National TV (VIDEO)
14 Ways to Be a Happier Mom
Emma Lives with Severe Food Allergies
How to Pack a No-Waste Lunch
Memorial Day Survival Guide
Backstage at Mamma Mia! with Irene Bunis

Comments (24)
it's not san fransico that hates kids. it's mcdonald's who loves profits at the expense of children's health. i wouldn't allow my child 50 feet from a happy meal. they want a cheap plastic toy, I can buy them that while they eat something made from real food.
Katherine, then you don't have to buy a Happy Meal for your child. Why should everyone else be banned from it? What's wrong with allowing people to make their own choices about what to feed their children? Or is it that it's ok for YOU, but not for everyone else?
Wrong. They didn't ban happy meals. They banned the toys. They can actually include a toy if they make their meals a little healthier. People are all up in arms stupid that they can't get the food for their kids if they want when that's not it at all. It's not all that different than when they banned the camel on cigarettes packages.
BTW I do think banning the toys is a pointless move. That's not the solution to the childhood obesity problem at all.
If the majority of voters vote against the democrats and their policies, we are to believe that it's the "will of the people" and take it as a call for change. BUT if the majority of voters vote against the politicians and propositions YOU want, then we are to believe the people are crazy, socialist tree-huggers. Gotcha.
If you want to be accurate, the law effectively DOES ban Happy Meals. Part of what makes it a "Happy Meal" is that toy. Without the toy, it's the same children's meal that every other restaurant serves. Yes, they can still call it by the same name, but it will not be the same product.
Since we're dealing in semantics... it wasn't the Camel that was banned, it was Joe Camel. Two different things.