Amuse Yourself with Embattled Calif. State Sen. Yee's Voter Guide Statement

His job is to prevent corruption, he says.


No longer gunning for higher office
Credit: shawncalhoun / photo on flickr

California State Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) cannonballed onto the national stage rather than making a simple splash, getting arrested by the FBI in a massive sting operation targeting organized crime in San Francisco. The progressive outwardly anti-gun politician stands accused of corruption and participation in a proposed gun-trafficking operation (read the details here).

We should presume innocence. It nevertheless puts the kibosh on his effort to run for secretary of state this fall and aim for higher offices. But apparently he had bigger fish to fry with his defense team, or it was too late to formally withdraw. His name, and more importantly, his candidate statement, still appears in the primary guide that was just mailed out to California voters. Read it. It gets pretty funny toward the end:

There are states passing laws today to make it harder to vote. California was once a place like that. But Californians moved our state from a place of exclusion to one of inclusion. I wrote the law that gave 911,145 more Californians access to our democracy by registering to vote online. It's your California. is our movement to register a million more Californians. The app turns your smartphone into a voter registration site to empower your friends, classmates, and families. You can download the app by visiting By taking personal responsibility and doing our part, we are making California a better place. When Sarah Palin was paid to speak at California State University, I uncovered where the money came from and authored a law to stop government agencies from hiding how they spend your tax dollars. It's your California. I fought to end tuition discrimination against immigrant college students so these DREAMers can pursue the American Dream. It's your California. Together we won the struggle for marriage equality. It's your California. I'm proud of my 100% Planned Parenthood record; my pro-environment record; and my common sense law enforcement record. And we succeeded in finally raising the disgracefully low minimum wage. We have much more to do. Under the Constitution, the Secretary of State's job is to empower Californians to govern California, to guarantee fair elections, expose special interests, and prevent corruption. I am the Democrat who will represent everyone. I hope to be your Secretary of State.

Italics in the original. Also, there's no app to download on the site referenced. Perhaps they don't know the difference between an app and an online form. And attention all politicians: Repeating sentences may make for a nice cadence in speeches or television commercials, but it makes you look stupid in print. At least he didn't mention his gun control efforts.

NEXT: 5 Reasons Why Low Skilled Immigrants are Good for the Economy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “At least he didn’t mention his gun control efforts.”

    Wouldn’t that come under “common sense law enforcement”?

    1. Perhaps he is being persecuted for being a minority. Someone call Obama and Holder.

      1. Asians are frequently lumped in with white, unless there is a specific need to exploit them, then… well, they are “other”.

        1. If he was a white hispanic he would be in real trouble.

    2. ^ this. Beat me to it.

  2. Crikey! He’s a supervillain!

    Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s “dangerous approach to the environment threatens to take the world with him.”…..socialflow

    1. There’s a reason Hollywood keeps picking Australian actors to play the bad guys…

    2. 5) He’s murdering sharks

      Citing the effects of shark attacks on tourism, Western Australia asked the Abbott administration to exempt the region from a federal law banning shark culling. The cull included Great Whites, which are endangered.

      The Humane Society called the decision “a complete disgrace” and thousands of Australians protested, but Abbott was basically like:

      Wow. He’s allowing culling of sharks in a very specific area because they’ve been attacking people.

      What a monster.

      1. The point is that they’ll all need bigger boats.

      2. Immunologist and Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty called the cuts “a sure way of accelerating our transition to a Third-World economy.”

        The only thing keeping a nation from the Third World is a lavishly funded bureau of government scientists.

    3. Literally one and a half of those 11 items are bad in principle.

      Fucking Salon.

      1. The question is are we prepared for the invading Australian hordes, mocking the size of our knives?

        1. mocking the size of our knives

          Speak for yourself.

          1. I have a broadsword.

            1. My broadsword serves as the bayonet on my shotgun.

            2. Made of Valyrian steel?

              1. Unobtainium…

    4. I just realized what I love most about that article. They act as if Abbott is doing this unilaterally behind the Australians’ backs.

      Completely unmentioned is that he actually ran on ending the carbon taxes put forward by Gillard, but they behave as if he just decided to do it. They’re therefore criticizing Abbott for holding to his campaign promises.

      This is a common theme on the left. When a nation explicitly votes for a right-wing agenda, progressives just pretend that the nation is secretly hyper-left wing and that the right just gained office through some kind of voter fraud.

      1. It’s typical urban white prog idiocy. Every Australian they know is an urban white prog with an Aussie accent, and none of them voted for Abbot’s party. QED, Abbot must have seized power in a military coup.

      2. That’s what had me laughing about the article. Half the shit on that list is stuff he specifically campaigned on in response to the uproar Gillard caused when she implemented her shit. Most of it is policies designed to counter the shit she put in place despite the Australian voters openly, and in a great majority, not wanting them.

        1. And

          He abolished the Climate Commission and is defunding the Australian Renewable Energy Agency/

          He has promised to repeal carbon and mining taxes

          Are both things the Gillard government put in place after both polling showed the Australians didn’t want them and *she promised that she was not going to do so during her campaign*.

          So you have to wonder which side is really seizing control through underhanded tricks.

          She was so disliked Abbot didn’t even have to resort to spinning and lying – he simply said “I’m going to undo the shit Gillard did” and the public ate it up.

      3. America needs someone like Tony Abbott.

    5. Hmmm, let’s go through the list of things this monster has done (rephrased to reflect non-liberal sensibilities):

      1) He plans to allow increased economic activity (logging in some national forests).

      2) He fired some counterproductive bureaucrats.

      3) He has promised to eliminate some taxes

      4) More economic activity allowing

      5) He’s allowing more economic activity

      6) He taken discussion of a ridiculous lie off an agenda

      7) He’s cutting more government employees and spending

      8) He’s kind of a dick about immigration (OK, one legit complaint so far)

      9) He’s kind of a dick about gay marriage (OK, that’s two)

      10) He quit having his nation interfere in a dispute between groups almost halfway around the world.

      11) He supports constitutional monarchy

      Which is apparently bad compared to constitutional mob rule (aka democracy)

      1. How is he being a dick on immigration?

        1. Placing people in camps on desert islands is pretty bad. Either let them in (preferable IMO) or send them back where they came from, don’t throw them in prison.

  3. Reddit Retardation: Poe’s Law Edition

    In a thread about people stealing coworker’s lunches.

    All these comments. Let’s just make it law that your employer should provide everyone lunch.

    1. That’s like saying “I wish I had a magic carpet so I could cut down the time of my commute in half.”

      I read a comment recently where the guy said he was voting democrat from now on to hasten the country’s demise, and then rebirth. I wonder if he’s actually on to something.

      1. A magic carpet? Awesome! When does it go on the market?

        1. Right after flying cars.

          1. That’s stupid. Just make a flying carpet big enough to carry your car.

            1. Yeah, don’t you know anything about technology?

            2. “Mark my word: a combination airplane and motorcar is coming. You may smile, but it will come.”

              ? Henry Ford, 1940


    2. “your employer should provide everyone lunch.”

      How is that going to stop me from stealing someone else’s lunch?

      1. If I got the leftardian theory right, the only reason people steal is because other people have more than them. So if everybody has the same stuff, nobody will need to steal.

        I have some reservations about their theory.

        1. Sooo… Proletariat sandwich envy?

      2. If the law requires your employer to provide your lunch, it will almost certainly designate what kind of lunch will be provided. Have you seen what the First Nanny has schools giving your kids? No one would steal that.

        1. Nah, they’ll just pass another law that prevents employers from doing that. The employer will be required to pay for the lunch the employee wants.

          Works for birth control, right?

          1. But the employee might want a lunch that isn’t sufficiently healthy, that doesn’t include the recommended daily nutrients or contains more than the required calories. We can’t have that. The employer must be required to select meals from the government-approved menu.

            1. To protect the workers, they will be prohibited from bringing food to the workplace, just in case it is not good for them. Only government sanctioned foods may be consumed in the workplace, and the employer will face a hefty fine if anybody is caught violating this provision.

  4. War of 1812 commemoration subdued; women, minorities hardest hit…..ashington/

    1. (the anniversary is observed at time of the burning of Washington)

      1. They moved the festivities to Detroit for a while and celebrated on Halloween, until they ran out of stuff to burn.

      2. Since one cannot even light up a cigarette at the Old Ebbitt Grill, I don’t see how fire can be much of any celebration there anymore.

    2. How did we ‘win’ the War of 1812? It was a stalemate in which we basically won two major battles, one of them after the war had already ended.

      1. It’s TIME.

      2. Certain elements in the British government thought that part or all of the US would be willing to return to colonial status. New England seriously tossed around secession, possibly joining Canada or forming a new dominion under the Crown. Lack of a standing army and a small navy made the US look like an easy conquest on the cheap, with obvious advantages for the British, who were obviously busy with Napoleon.

        The War of 1812 was a victory because the Union held together, and remained independent.

        1. The Brits and the Canadians seem ready to party

          Aug. 24, the actual day of the 200th anniversary of the burning of the Capitol, will be celebrated in Washington with little more than a 5k run at the Historic Congressional Cemetery, a family festival in Georgetown and a beer festival at Yards Park. The only sponsors signed on thus far are the British, Belgian and Canadian Embassies, WAMU radio and On Tap Magazine

    3. If you happen to be visiting the beautiful Adirondacks in September you can see the bicentennial celebration of the Battle of Plattsburgh, which was the last consequential battle of the war.

      1. The Battle of New Orleans was very consequential.

        1. In what sense? The results were purely psychological from an American standpoint of nationalism and for Andrew Jackson’s political career. Not insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but I only meant the battle had no effect on the war.

          Strategically the British objective was to disrupt American trade on the Mississippi. They had neither the inclination nor the resources to actually seize the territory from the US.

          The Treaty of Ghent would have obligated them to return it even if they had won and there’s no reason to think they would have failed to abide by the terms with Napoleon back on the throne in France.

          1. New Orleans, particularly the way that a ragtag band of misfits and militia easily defeated a British professional force three times their size, forestalled any future attempts by the British to grab New Orleans.

            There are plenty of historical examples of the Brits grabbing a toehold port city in order to command the trade of a larger region which remained independent. Not to mention the military implications. If Packenham had defeated Jackson, they probably would have done just that. With New Orleans secure, they could have armed and supported various Indian groups in the wars against the US.

            The defeat of the British at New Orleans and of Tecumseh’s confederation secured the westward expansion of the US in the following 100 years.

            1. Leaving your well disciplined troops standing steadfast in formation under withering fire from a ragtag band of misfits and militia, awaiting deployment orders that would never come is a fool-proof way to get your ass decisively kicked in battle….

            2. With New Orleans secure, they could have armed and supported various Indian groups in the wars against the US

              Interesting point, but after the failure of Tecumseh’s confederation would the British have any confidence in the ability of armed Indians to resist US expansion?

              And by 1815 the war in America was seen as a distraction from the task of reorganizing war-ravaged Europe. I don’t think they would want to pick another fight with the US over New Orleans after exhausting so many resources to defeat Napoleon twice.

              1. Interesting point, but after the failure of Tecumseh’s confederation would the British have any confidence in the ability of armed Indians to resist US expansion?

                Even if they chose not to foment Indian uprisings, they still could have sat on New Orleans and collected a duty on all shipping. Holding onto New Orleans would not be much more difficult then holding Hong Kong, Singapore, or Gibraltar.

            3. Also let’s not forget that this all occurred on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution. With that starting there would have inevitably been forward thinking members of Parliament and the British government that realized US expansion across North America was inevitable and it is better to have the US as a trading partner rather than enemy.

              Consider that after 1815 there were multiple border and diplomatic disputes between the United States and Britain that did not escalate to armed conflict because war had become untenable for either side given their need for commerce.

              1. Trade does not automatically mean peace. Germany’s biggest trading partner in 1939 was France.

                With that starting there would have inevitably been forward thinking members of Parliament and the British government that realized US expansion across North America was inevitable and it is better to have the US as a trading partner rather than enemy.

                Nothing is inevitable.

                Consider that after 1815 there were multiple border and diplomatic disputes between the United States and Britain that did not escalate to armed conflict because war had become untenable for either side given their need for commerce.

                Or because the land juggernaut US could not come to grips with Brittania who ruled the waves, and the UK didn’t have the manpower to fight the US on land.

          2. The Treaty of Ghent did not recognize the Louisiana Purchase, and Spain (Britain’s ally) still laid claim to the area (long story). If the Brits won in New Orleans, they could have told the Spanish, “here’s your territory back,” and the US would have had to fight a new war with Spain.

            1. Spain was in absolutely no position to defend New Orleans from the US giving that nearly all their colonies in the Americas were in open revolution at the time.

              1. Sure, but they held on to Florida and Cuba for a while.

                1. They sold Florida with a pretty clear understanding that the US was prepared to take it from them if they refused.

                  The main reason Cuba avoided the same fate was because the slavery issue flared up after 1820.

                2. The US didn’t try to invade Cuba until 1898. There’s no way the US would have been cool with the Spanish taking New Orleans after the War of 1812.

  5. Except for one particularly mercenary politico (yep, W. Brown), every other one has recently found they have never really met this guy.
    ‘Leland who? Uh, might have met him at some opening ceremony’…
    Even Willy has limits; ask him about Jim Jones and he’s suddenly heard someone calling from across the room.

    1. The Jim Jones wikipedia is a who’s who of Northern California politics.

      1. And you can bet the politicos have interns trying to get those names off of there.

  6. Patton Oswalt shows why he should stick with comedy:

    Very quickly, before my head explodes:

    Quite a week for racism. And an even worse week for the apologists.

    So can we at least proceed, in the inevitable “think pieces” about Cliven Bundy and Don Sterling, with the following defenses exploded and set aside:

    1. Yes, Cliven Bundy was just “wondering” about the state of black people in 21st century AMERICA. And he’s allowed any thought. And we’re allowed to be horrified by those thoughts. Especially the thought that slavery kept black families together. The first thing the slave trade did was separate children from parents & husbands from wives. It was a for-profit goods & services enterprise and the best way to make a buck was to rotate your stock.

    1. The Left never cares what ranchers or other independent-minded folks think, UNLESS they say something that could be called racist. Then, they’r all over it blogging about it and wringing their hands over it. But if one of theirs [Harry Reid] calls Obama a nice “light-skinned” black who can turn on and off his “negro dialect” at will, well then, that’s really not a big deal.

  7. Cont’d

    So in that case, what Cliven Bundy — a freeloader who receives subsidies from a government he doesn’t believe in– is “wondering” about is wrong. The way a shoplifter who “wonders” if he or she can get away with walking out of a store with a 6 pack of beer under their jacket is wrong. Again, you can have all the shitty, ignorant thoughts & opinions you want. And everyone else gets to call them shitty & ignorant. And maybe try to change your views with reasoned debate which, as you can see by my seething, I’m not attempting here.

    Secondly, I’m already starting to see people defend Don Sterling with the, “He’s not racist — his girlfriend is black and Mexican!” line of “reasoning.” I heard this shit said to defend Lou Dobbs (Latino wife) and John Derbyshire (Asian wife).

    Does ANYONE but me feel like that’s EXTRA creepy — the “reasonable” white guy generalizing and debasing a race of people based on anecdotal evidence or cherry-picked statistics, who gets a pass because they’ve selected a minority they’ve deemed okay to fuck? By that reasoning, every slave owner who ever raped one of his slaves was as egalitarian as MLK.

    I mean, I’m just “wondering.”

    1. It’s fine to be outraged that people would defend either Bundy or Donald Sterling.

      The problem is when they pretend the people who are matter or a paradigm for their opposition.

      1. The problem is when they pretend the people who are matter or a paradigm for their opposition.

        My one Republican uncle once sent a cartoon where Michelle Obama was eating watermelon, therefore every single Republican is racist.

        Oh, and the unstated assumption that anyone who is racist (by their very expansive definition of the term) is therefore wrong about everything.

        1. Shockley was racist/eugenecist and he helped invent the transistor.

          Everybody is a mix of good and bad.

          1. Derpetologist|4.26.14 @ 6:51PM|#
            “Shockley was racist/eugenecist and he helped invent the transistor.”

            He also managed the marketing of his inventions well; I remember production of a circuit with the “Shockley Avalanche Diode”.
            And, yes, it was powerful; the only one that handled the amperage required. The alternative was cascading amplified circuits.

        2. The narrative is Bundy and Sterling are conservative white guys that simply failed to use the dogwhistles and racial codewords that every conservative uses to mask their racism.

          Never mind that only progressives can hear it, it’s totally there, man! You just need to listen carefully.

          1. The narrative is Bundy and Sterling are conservative white guys that simply failed to use the dogwhistles and racial codewords that every conservative uses to mask their racism.

            Except that Sterling has given vast amounts of money to Democrats.

            1. Yeah, you weren’t supposed to notice that part.

            2. Huh, did not know that. And I strong suspect a lot of other people won’t be aware of that either since such an inconvenient fact will likely not be reported on by the media.

            3. And he’s a Joo.

          2. OK. I just listened to the audio on TMZ. There are definitely some senility issues there. The guy has no fucking idea what is going on…

            1. Good point, but I’m pretty sure that means he’s a racist who’s a bit around the corner.

    2. “Patton Oswalt shows why he should stick with comedy”

      Maybe that *is* his comedy, who knows. Their political schtick isn’t funny even if it’s advertised as such.



      “They’re such retards…”

      *laughter and cheers*

      “Ted Cruz”


      “and I forgot the punch line!”

      *prolonged applause; standing ovation*

          1. Patton is pretty overtly prejudiced against believers and it turned me off of his act a few years back. None of these modern guys that I’ve heard anyway can hold a candle to Steve Martin in his heyday.

            1. Oswalt is a bitter little turd and always has been. A lot of what makes him “funny” is right-think, much like thinking guys like Colbert and Stewart are edgy comedy geniuses.

    3. So you see, not paying money to the govt is the same as being subsidized in proglandia. I’ve seen progs say that by not paying grazing fees, Bundy stole millions from the glorious, almighty state.

    4. By Derp standards, that’s not that bad. Honestly, parts of the second paragraph about Bundy were derpy, but other than that it was actually pretty good IMO. Like others said, the issue is when people try to act like everyone not on their team is like Bundy (or Sterling) or that being racist has some effect on whether or not Bundy is right or wrong.

      1. ^^A HUNDRED TIMES THIS!!!!

        Bundy’s thoughts on race, gay marriage, taxes, music, or professional league soccer has absolutely nothing to do with his grievance against the government or how his case should be treated before the law.

        This is the ACTUAL meaning of EQUALITY that seems to be totally lost on people on all sides of the political spectrum.

  8. Remember the prog’s response to redistribution I posted earlier? Here’s the video he was responding to:

    1. Trying to watch that video made my head hurt at the dumb expressions made by those college kids. It reminds me of Paul Fussel’s book Class where he said we should generally put quotation marks around the word “university.”

      Wonderful book, by the way.

    2. Do you feel like you are making progress with this guy? Or, is it time to throw him under the bus?

      We can help you with the literature:…..fender.png

      1. I detect faint glimmers of insight here and there.

        He has certainly learned to respect me.

  9. College professor ordered students to stomp on Jesus:

    1. Ah, yes, that wonderful Florida story from 2013. What’s particularly interesting is how the professor who invented the exercise (not the same as the Florida prof) chose to defend it, from a sympathetic publication which obviously thought it was rebutting all the Faux News right-wing noise machine propaganda:

      “Neuliep noted a few points in the exercise that he said were important. First, he noted that he used the word “step,” not “stomp.” Most important, he said, is that the exercise is done with the expectation that most students won’t step on the paper. And Neuliep said he has used the exercise in his own class, that hardly anyone steps on the paper, and that this is in fact the point….

      “Neuliep noted that a common question that has come up in commentary about the exercise — such as in this Fox News article — is why the exercise doesn’t call for students to write “Mohammed” on a piece of paper and to step on that. Neuliep said that the exercise was designed for us in the United States, where a majority of students wouldn’t have the reaction to “Mohammed” that they do to “Jesus.” If teaching the course in another country, he said, he might make the point with a different word, but for the exercise to work, the word needs to have real meaning to most students.

      “”If I asked them to write my name on the paper, they would step on it,” he said.”…..vpLUs.dpbs

      1. “Neuliep noted that a common question that has come up in commentary about the exercise is why the exercise doesn’t call for students to write “Mohammed” on a piece of paper and to step on that”

        Yeah… why not give it a shot? What’s the worst that could happen?

      2. Two cultural aspects to this exercise the prof might or might not be aware of:

        “Jesus” is a rather common first name in the Spanish speaking world. Granted, in English speaking contexts most En/Sp bilinguals will read it as the religious figure but that depends a lot on the individual.

        In Japanese history there were pogroms against Christians in which entire villages were paraded past a cross on the ground and told to step on it. Those who refused were themselves crucified. Replaying this example of genocide might be seen as rather sick.

    1. “Hindenburg moment for progs:”

      Don’t go on national TV after you’ve been hitting the bong.

    2. Holy Flirking Schnitt that is funny. I’m having my knee reconstructed Wednesday and I haven’t had a laugh in a week since finding out. I needed that

  10. That “statement” is an exercise in “how to use positive verbs and adjectives referring to myself, while using Negative Code Words for anything about my opposition”

  11. Oberlin students re-enact civil rights movement; many broken arms from self back-patting:

    Dah-voo dorays! Dah-voo dorays! Come, oh come, tolerance day!

    1. In an era where every bit of technology has a camera stuck to it, I would figure that video would have highlighted that individual in his/her KKK regalia (maybe I missed it). Anyway, I would like to congratulate those students for having the moral courage and fortitude to take a walk down the well paved road to civil rights, 40 years after it was well established, and no longer socially taboo…

      1. Yeah, if they want to be brave they should demonstrate for some cause which actually has them risk assault….

        1. During the 60’s civil rights protests/marches, being socially ostracized was probably the mildest reprisal to be expected, being savaged by the police and their dogs, assaulted by counter protesters, credible death threats from the klan/neo-nazis, and being labeled as a trouble maker in desperate need of a tour in Vietnam from the FBI, etc… that took more than a little moral courage, and a symbolic gesture 40 years after the fact…

        2. Yeah, if they want to be brave they should demonstrate for some cause which actually has them risk assault….

          Plane tickets are expensive.

      2. …”Anyway, I would like to congratulate those students for having the moral courage and fortitude”….

        But as D. mentioned, there was serious risk of broken arms and who knows? They might not have signed up for O-care yet!
        The HORROR!

        1. “Rotator cuff surgery they’re gonna need After the jillion high-fives they’re given each other…”

          1. Someone could have fat-shamed them!

            1. Micro-aggressions are no joke, man!.. Words can hurt!

    2. I am not gonna watch that. Geez what a bunch of crap.

      I quit when the text said the ATTACKS culminated when someone was spotted wearing certain clothing. Twenty bucks says it was a false flag.

      These idiots don’t know what an attack is.

      1. This is exactly the same psychological orgy that would frequently sweep through medieval convents. The devil would be sighted stalking the halls, young nuns would report being savaged by the beast, whipping the whole place into a frothing frenzy. Young, emotionally volatile people engaged in the wished-for battle of their lives, without of course, any actual battle or danger. Then officials would be called to investigate and purge the demons.


    3. “Racist” incidents @ Oberlin proven to be hoax over a year ago = university and the media perpetuated the myth even after the identity of perpetrator and his motives were known…..x-of-2013/

      “[Oberlin Dean] said he was constrained by Oberlin’s internal judicial process from discussing what administrators knew about the reasons behind the racist incidents. Oberlin officials insisted that they [couldnt] provide specifics of the case due to the Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal privacy law that colleges are rarely punished for violating.”…..11610.html

      To be clear = they used the bullshit claim about ‘not being able to share info’ as cover for *perpetuating a false view of the incidents for months*. They knew it was a hoax and maintained the myth.

      When hoax was covered in Huffpo months later (link above), Lefty commenters yawn and remind people that the simulacra of Racism has same effect and therefore the reaction was warranted.

      Basically, its what Suthenboy said = medieval fake pregnancy / demonpossession/and exorcism-purging enacted.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.