CA Spec. Elec.: A third option?

The TV ads on all sides are starting to ramp up now, on both sides of the issues. Here in SF, it seems that pro-73/75/77 and anti-75 are getting the most play, but that's just my impression.

But just now, I saw something different: A well-dressed couple, taking turns speaking directly to camera. Their message?

Vote 'No' on all California measures.

More below.

Perhaps I missed it before, but this is the first time I've seen this spot. It doesn't advocate or argue against any issue, but takes the tack of calling the very idea of this special election an affront to Californians. Can't argue with them there--it exists because of a governor looking for the easy way out, putting his laziness to the electorate as "fightink vor YOU!"

Frankly, if there was a ballot option to invalidate the entire election, that's the one I'd check. Yes, yes, 79 and 80 look like good measures. But Schwarzenegger's show is going to cost the state millions--hundreds of millions?--of dollars. So when I go to the polls on the 8th, I'll be grumbling all the way. And as curmudgeonly as I can be, I know there are many more out there even more so--to the point that their protest vote will be one that's never cast. To show their displeasure, they'll stay home.

That's what makes this ad interesting. It's a GOTV effort directed at people who've, for the most part, shut their ears to the entire election.

The people behind (and on) it are Joseph and Victoria Cotchett. Joseph, a multimillionaire trial attorney, has made massive amounts of contributions to Dem organizations and candidates around the country. There's no website or organization built to support it that I saw on the ad, and googling reveals nothing.

It's just a simple message--and an extremely valuable GOTV tool. We all probably know a few people who aren't going to vote. Appeal to their hatred of politics and homework. They don't have to expend brainpower, they can just express their frustration that this election is happening in the first place. They don't have to be 'pro' or 'anti' anything--they can simply be pissed at the whole idea. Just go vote 'no.'

NOTE: By no means am I suggesting you, dear kossacks, vote a whole 'no' slate. If you're here, you've already done the homework. 79 and 80 merit looks. The rest still blow. But when you talk to your friends, families and coworkers, and they get that 'You're making me think?' look on their faces, keep it simple and tell 'em to go vote no. Better to get the votes than not at all.

•  already voted

  and so did my hubby and daughter, all voted "no" on the six, yes on the two.

  And her friends keep asking me about the ballot as well, and I tell them nix the six.

  Yes, when in doubt just vote no on all of them, send Ahnold a message that we dont' want to waste money on his fucking "special interest" election.

  by SanJoseLady on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 06:32:00 PM PDT

•  I vote "no" on EVERY ballot measure!

  The whole "initiative process" is a corrupt, festering cesspool--anyone with MONEY can put just about ANYTHING on the ballot by hiring paid fucktards to stand in front of Wal*Mart and Target and lies their asses off to people walking by so that they can collect a sig and get paid.

  I heard one of these assholes a few months ago asking people to sign "petitions" to lower the car taxes.  Such bullshit--NONE of these propostions have anything to do with lowering car taxes!!

  Fuck the initiative process!  VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING until they make it illegal to hire paid signature gatherers.

  by Prop Man on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 06:36:43 PM PDT

  •  Now's that's blue language

    in both senses. :)

    by grimc on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 06:40:36 PM PDT

  •  Took your advice

    even before you gave it. Voted NO on 'em all.

    by smash on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 06:47:01 PM PDT

  •  Paid signatures

    I always ask the people (standing outside Target) gathering signatures if they understand anything about the stack of proposals they have in their hand.  After quickly stating that this is just their job.  I tell them to go get a real job and stop ruining our system of government.  I then dissuade anyone within earshot of signing for something that is misrepresented by special interests.  

    by MyPOV on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:10:26 PM PDT

•  we hold the power

  If we continuously vote "no" on these efforts to sidestep the legislative process, which invariably lead to shortsighted laws that end up crippling the state's ability to do business, maybe the corporations and lobbyists (and, yes, union interests) will get the message and stop putting these things on the ballot.  And we can have some sanity in state government again.

  by dday on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 06:41:17 PM PDT

•  Did anyone watch the forum tonight?

  I heard that the gov went down hard.  He even tried to interrupt one questioner who was having none of that.

  by Alliance for a Better California on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 06:52:15 PM PDT

  •  Didn't even know there was one

    Don't think there was anything on the Bay Area channels--maybe local somewhere else?

    CBS national news had a nice piece on Schwarzenegger and his fake vow to not take money from special interests, though.

    by grimc on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 06:54:13 PM PDT

    •  Good

      It was on in LA and broadcast in San Jose as well.

      by Alliance for a Better California on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:10:16 PM PDT

•  Someone mailed me something

  That told me to vote no on everything except yes on Prop 78. Maybe Big Pharma is trying to appeal to liberals? LOL. It said it was from

  Voter Information Guide
  13701 Riverside Dr.
  #604 Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
  

  by jfern on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:15:45 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    They have been sending out all sorts of ethically challenged mailers.  I blogged on another earlier today.

    They are also push polling with a firm in Iowa.  When you have over $80M to spend you have to find ways to get rid of it all.

    by Alliance for a Better California on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:20:57 PM PDT

  •  Check this out

    Levine and Associates

    VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE is the largest and most powerful slate published for Democrats and Independent voters in California.

    • We mailed more pieces to California Democrat and Independent voters in every statewide Primary and General Election since 1994 and more pieces in every L.A. City election since 1993 than any other slate publisher.

    • More than 80% of the candidates and ballot measures that have appeared on the VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE since the slate was founded in 1993 have won their elections.

    • Larry Levine, publisher of VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE, has been producing slate mail in California since 1971.

    Larry is the father of Lloyd Levine (D) The address was also used for his 2004 campaign filing.

    I feel dirty just knowing this.

    by grimc on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:30:21 PM PDT

•  Joe Cotchett was Gary Condit's lawyer

  Nuf said.

  by Eleftheria on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:25:18 PM PDT

•  I want to scream

  when I hear people discussing the "merits" of the various propositions.  

  The only "discussion" that should be taking place is why in the hell we have this bogus proposition system on board at all.

  Arnold's taking himself down with this election. He may be riding the "Lifecycle" every morning, but his cred has been on a death cycle practically from jump. He's terminating himself.

  by grayscale on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:40:35 PM PDT