I no longer remember who shared this information, so you may attribute it to nothing if you wish.

A friend of mine has close ties some how with the Controller I believe from California. And he reported that said controller had gone to DC to see if California could (a) become a territory or (b) file bankruptcy.

He determined neither was realistic, but the fact that California investigated the possibilities shows how desperate things are.

Obama's policies could lead this nation down California's road of financial plight, spend and give to everybody that will solve the problems.

This is why Obama will bail CA out with taxpayer money, just like GM. He will call it a loan, and say "in these uncertain desperate economic times, we had no other choice" and then they will trot out some stats that CA pays more in federal tax or something, and then the rest of us will involuntarily grab our ankles and take it.

Because CA is terrible PR for the liberals. The fundamental thinking of a liberal is "pay nothing, get everything." And CA is what you get as a result.

The situation as it is now is easily the most positive atmosphere for Republicans since (IMO) 2002. A few data points:

- Rasmussen shows R's ahead on "generic ballot" by 9%.
- Qunnipiac poll out today, Obama approval on the issues:
-- 41% on economy
-- 34% on creating jobs
-- 35% on health care
-- 48% on terrorism
-- 45% overall
- Also in Qunnipiac, the public is split 35-37 on whether they'd have been better off with McCain as president
- CNN/Opinion research: 48% judge Obama's first year a failure; 47% a success

The Brown-Coakley matchup, regardless of who ends up winning, has already showcased the discontent there is toward the incumbent party.

Who are you referring to?

No, California's problems have nothing to do with either party. Instead, they have to do with ridiculous vote requirements which make governing impossible.

How has it already done that? Not a single vote has been cast.

link?

Scozzafava, Rubio, Patrick Hughes (to beat Kirk), Mike Lee to beat Bennett, etc.

So that's a scientific, peer-reviewed article establishing a causative link between California's economic demise the plebiscite laws of California?

Yes, people complain about the initiative formula of California but I truly doubt it's the main factor in California's economic demise. However, spending too much sure sounds much more plausible. And for that, it doesn't take a regression analysis. If you spend more than you take in over a long enough time, when it's time to pay it back, you won't have enough. Seems simple enough.

Go ahead, fish for boogey-men elsewhere.