How The Right-Wing Lost Me

I was born and raised in Orange County, Calif., the hotbed of right-wing political conservatism. As a young reporter on The Tustin News I met and admired James. B. Utt, my congressman and probably the most conservative Republican to ever walk the halls of the House of Representatives. The closest clone to Utt in today's Congress would be Ron Paul.

But Utt was a flaming liberal compared to the ultra wing-nuts in Orange County where the John Birch Society flourished and the House Un-American Activities Committee was their surrogate God. It was the age of a Red Under Every Bed and Better Be Dead Than Red. The Republican Party was so strong in the early 1960s in that county that no self-respecting Democrat stood a chance at being elected dog catcher if that would have been a partisan post. That is why I started my voting career as a registered Republican.

I've changed political direction over the years but never gave much attention why until the answers appeared before my very eyes this morning.

The moral grounds of Republican conservatism shifted from preserving the social order championed by William F. Buckley Jr. to destroying what they perceive as the enemy in a politics of "grievance and resentment."

As the U.S. was mired in the Vietnam war in 1968, President Johnson decided he would not seek reelection, a move Buckley opposed because he understood the importance of stability and found the "burn, baby, burn" drumbeat from the left, which had forced Johnson's decision, deeply unsettling.

Buckley believed that "instant guidance by the people of the government means instability, and instability is subversive of freedom." In other words, Johnson's withdrawal was too responsive. For Buckley, maintaining social order was of paramount importance, even if it meant helping to preserve the welfare state he deplored.

Compare Buckley's circumspect opinion with that of the most vocal conservative in 2009, the "I hope Obama fails" rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh who is more reminiscent of the tantrum-throwing far left of the late 1960s than of classic conservatism.

My source for this analysis comes from an article in today's Los Angeles Times reviewing a book published by Sam Tanenhaus, book review editor at the New York Times. Tanenhaus, Buckley's biographer, explores the right's shift from old-school classic conservatism to the revolutionary "movement conservatism" of today. He ponders one of the great political paradoxes of our times: How did a political ideology once devoted to "conserving" the past and balancing stability and progress become an ideology of insurrection?

The short answer, of course, is that conservatism has been betrayed, that what we today call conservatism -- a politics of "grievance and resentment" -- isn't.

The article refers to a 1954 essay on "pseudo-conservatives" written by historian Richard Hofstadter:

Americans suffer from "status anxiety." During times of great social flux, these fears play out in politics as people seek out enemies (which helps them reaffirm their own standing) and, at the same time, damn a social order they feel they can't dominate.

It's not a stretch to say that the election of the first black president, as well as the deep economic recession, have challenged Americans' sense of self. That a resulting status anxiety would play itself out on the right more than the left may have to do with the right's general discomfort with the kind of collective identities -- unions, ethnics, gender -- that the left tends to embrace. Instead of finding affiliations to secure their status, the right's "rugged individualists" get mired in the type of anomie that in turn increases the need to reaffirm one's place in a topsy-turvy world.

The personal, deeply vituperative tone of the debate over healthcare reform seems to suggest that Americans' anger is not just about whether a "public option" is part of a reform package. The fear is less about encroaching socialism than it is about getting lost and forgotten in a rapidly changing society. Change isn't slowing down, and the bad news is that these feelings of losing control are not likely to go away any time soon.

Leave it to Paul Krugman, the liberal economist writing for the New York Times, to stick a dagger in the Republicans' defiant stand against healthcare reform. In his column today, Krugman notes that President Nixon offered a healthcare program probably far superior to what the Democrats are developing now in Congress. It died because Sen. Ted Kennedy opposed it, a decision he said later he regretted.

Nixon proposed requiring that all employers, not just large companies, offer insurance. He also embraced tighter regulation of insurers, calling on states to “approve specific plans, oversee rates, ensure adequate disclosure, require an annual audit and take other appropriate measures.” No illusions there about how the magic of the marketplace solves all problems, Krugman darkly notes. Asks Krugman: How a Republican president could sound so nonideological, and offer such a reasonable proposal?

Part of the answer is that the right-wing fringe, which has always been around — as an article by the historian Rick Perlstein puts it, “crazy is a pre-existing condition” — has now, in effect, taken over one of our two major parties. Moderate Republicans, the sort of people with whom one might have been able to negotiate a health care deal, have either been driven out of the party or intimidated into silence. Whom are Democrats supposed to reach out to, when Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was supposed to be the linchpin of any deal, helped feed the “death panel” lies?

But there’s another reason health care reform is much harder now than it would have been under Nixon: the vast expansion of corporate influence.

We tend to think of the way things are now, with a huge army of lobbyists permanently camped in the corridors of power, with corporations prepared to unleash misleading ads and organize fake grass-roots protests against any legislation that threatens their bottom line, as the way it always was. But our corporate-cash-dominated system is a relatively recent creation, dating mainly from the late 1970s.

And now that this system exists, reform of any kind has become extremely difficult. That’s especially true for health care, where growing spending has made the vested interests far more powerful than they were in Nixon’s day. The health insurance industry, in particular, saw its premiums go from 1.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1970 to 5.5 percent in 2007, so that a once minor player has become a political behemoth, one that is currently spending $1.4 million a day lobbying Congress.

For the record, I am not enamored by the far left crazies on the Democratic side of the spectrum. Sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils. I feel the Republican Party has been hijacked by the far right loonies and rendered it impotent, more so than in the old days in Orange County where the Birchers tried and failed.

In Search Of A Statesman

As the nation pays its final respect for the life and times of Sen. Edward Kennedy it has become clear to me we will never again see a politician of his stature grace the halls of Congress. That is sad.

What struck me was the litany of friends and foes alike who all agreed on one basic principle: Ted Kennedy was a man of his word. He was passionate in his beliefs even though many disagreed. He was an engaging politician with that booming voice and Irish wit who could charm the pants off his fiercest opponent. And, he could compromise on a piece of legislation with full knowledge he could improve it sometime down the road.

I look at the Senate roster and fail to see any Republican or Democrat who can stand up with the national recognition, charisma, intelligence and political skills to pull off what Kennedy achieved in his 46 years representing the state of Massachusetts.

The closest Republican could be Orrin Hatch of Utah. He lacks the charisma that could rally a nation. John McCain of Arizona may try on his principles but they were rejected by voters in his 2008 presidential bid. The Democrats have John Kerry, until now the junior senator from Massachusetts, but his legislative accomplishments are nondescript and his waffling during his 2004 campaign for president probably has doomed him for good.

Despite the baggage Ted Kennedy carried behind him -- Chappaquiddick, his drinking, the assassination of older brothers Jack and Bobby Kennedy (in the minds of some conservatives at the time) -- he had the luxury of knowing he would always be reelected. He was seriously challenged for his senate seat only twice and the Kennedy family political machine saw to it he would win.

Not many politicians have such a luxury. Along with his family's financial fortunes, it allowed him to pursue his causes without worry over offending campaign contributors.

And there lies the root curse of almost all House of Representatives and many senators. They become obsessed with getting reelected as their highest priority and turn timid to promote their own causes for their constituents as was the case with Ted Kennedy.

The most sterling example is Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania who began his career as a Democrat, switched to Republican and this year switched back to the Democratic Party when he realized he couldn't win the state's Republican senatorial primary next year. Both his Democratic and Republican office seekers claim Specter's causes blow to the political winds. That's an albatross Specter must live with despite his pleas of indignation.

Nowadays, when a member of congress or senate speaks his/her mind, you know for a certainty he/she comes from a safe gerrymandered district or state. It is why we hear an obscure congressman from Northern California tell a self-described patriotic terrorist he is a true American. It is why Barney Frank can sarcastically ask a constituent from what planet does she reside.

None of these people will reach the stature of Ted Kennedy.

"In the smaller confines of the Senate, people can detect a phony, so the fact they were really were his convictions gave him a zone of grace," says Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island).

The nation also must rue the day for statesmen leading us out of the wilderness of indecision. The John Adams followed by Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Hiram Johnson, Henry Cabot Lodge, Everett Dirkson -- all in their time whether right or wrong shaped the future of our nation.

The NFL Does A Sandlot Do Over

Remember those kid sandlot games we played where the oak tree was the goal line on one side of the field and the public restroom the goal line on the other. The sidelines were marked by Fatso's dad's Chevy on one side and Jimmy's mom's lawn chair on the other. Any disputes over the mock gridiron's imaginary chalk lines were settled with a do over.

Folks, welcome to the National Football League, the most popular sports league in the country, home of the sparkling, new billion-dollar stadium of the Dallas Cowboys that owner Jerry Jones begged, borrowed and built. Among its features is a $30 million high def scoreboard. The giant TV screens are 160 feet long and hang 90 feet above midfield.

It seems the geniuses who designed the stadium neglected to factor in a tiny detail -- the trajectory of a football lofted mightily in the air by a punter. It happened in the first exhibition (the NFL insists we call it a preseason) game when Tennessee Titan punter A.J. Trapasso punted and the ball bounced off those pretty pixels on the midfield TV screen.

Not to worry, NFL commissioner Roger Goodall announced today. We'll do a do over. Under most circumstances, when the ball strikes the screen, the play is dead and will be replayed.

The first thing that came to my mind is what happens when a punter deliberately strikes the TV screen on coach's orders on three or four consecutive punts. Can the refs throw the yellow flag for delay of game? Welcome to high tech football played with sandlot rules.

The commissioner's ruling was greeted with these comments from football fans:

NOOOOOOO... that is BS... horrible choice by the league... How can a video board become a possible game changing obstacle

That's a surprise. Guess the NFL didn't want to foot the bill to move it.

Funny stuff. Hard to believe that a billion dollar operation like the Cowboys could screw something like this up so badly.

Dumbest idea ever, this isn't backyard football!!

What's to stop a QB from intentionally throwing at the scoreboard to get a "do over"?

You have got to be kidding! I guess Jones has the stones in the NFL. Can you imagine the Commish bending over and kissing ass for Cleveland or Detroit?

What idiots. Can't wait to see a super bowl decided by this.

Hahaha.....I think that everyone forgot how much pull Jerry has, he gets what he wants because like it or not the Cowboys generate more revenue than 90% of the other teams in the NFL, period. End of story.

Is Goodell crazy? This is insane. I hope every punter in the league who plays in that stadium hits that scoreboard every time. Keep doing it over and over and over delaying the game until people watching on TV change the channel. I know my boy Shane Lectler will have no problem hitting it anytime he wants to. Hit it, then do over. Hit it, then do over. Hit it, then do over. All in consecutive punts. Eventually, the NFL will wake up and raise the scoreboard.

What brought a chuckle to my lips are those who believe only the government can screw things up such as administering the cars for clunkers program. It happens to the best of us, it seems.

Meanwhile, inside the huddle, I tell Fatso to hold his block and give me time to throw deep to Jimmy at the oak tree.

We Are A Culture Of Liars

Believe me when I tell you I am writing a column about a review by Jessica Bennett of Newsweek about psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book, The Liar in Your Life, the inspiration for a new film, The Invention of Lying, as well as a Fox TV series Lie To Me.

We are a nation of liars, Feldman is quoted. Writes Bennett:

Time and time again, public-opinion polls show that honesty is among the top five characteristics we want in a leader, friend, or lover; the world is full of woeful stories about the tragic consequences of betrayal. At the same time, deception is all around us. We are lied to by government officials and public figures to a disturbing degree; many of our social relationships are based on little white lies we tell each other. We deceive our children, only to be deceived by them in return. And the average person, says psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book on lying, tells at least three lies in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. "There's always been a lot of lying," says Feldman, whose book came out this month. "But I do think we're seeing a kind of cultural shift where we're lying more, it's easier to lie, and in some ways it's almost more acceptable."

This path of fabrications starts at the top. Among the great whoppers of our time is President Clinton claiming he never had sex with that woman. The cigarette manufacturing executives telling Congress they were unaware nicotine was addictive. Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina telling aids he was walking the Appalachian Trail when he jetted to Argentina for a liaison with his Latina lover. The list is endless (which I don't think is a lie).

Actually, it is a cultural trickle-down epidemic, writes Bennett:

We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our psyches that we hardly even notice we're engaging in it. Spam e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday pleasantries we don't really mean—"It's so great to meet you!" "I love that dress"—have, as Feldman puts it, become "an omnipresent white noise we've learned to tune out."

And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that "cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it's getting worse." In that survey, 64 percent of students said they'd cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman's book, shows that 18- to 34-year-olds—those of us fully reared in this lying culture—deceive more frequently than the general population.

When I was a child we learned by the second grade that George Washington never lied and confessed to his parents he chopped down the cherry tree. He was rewarded for his honesty. That parable and those we read in "the good book" were suppose to be the foundations of our lives.

I was a good disciple. I told a visiting aunt she had graying hair. Oops. How quickly one learns to become more discreet. By the time I married, I would cringe when my wife asked if her fanny was too big for the pair of slacks she was modeling. I tried humor, asking if that was a trick question. And, so, those little white lies grow.

Of course, the mean streak in me defaults to truth mode. Clerks who cheerfully bid "Have a nice day" are rebutted by "Easy for you to say." Old folks who can only talk about the weather proclaim what a beautiful day it is are rejoined by "too damned hot." I take great delight turning inane greetings literally.

Says Bennett:

Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others' affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and savvy, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.

As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to "play dead" when threatened. But in the modern world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.

How can you tell someone is lying? By studying facial expressions, the split-second eyebrow arch that shows surprise when a spouse asks who was on the phone; the furrowed nose that gives away a hint of disgust when a person says "I love you." Once you learn that, the experts say, try to prove it.

I cannot sit here and tell you I have never lied. Usually they unthinkingly jump right out of my mouth in a reflex of self-preservation, usually to disguise embarrassment.

Back in the second grade, my parents told me not to take the bus home after school because neither would be home until early evening. I was to walk to the principal's home and stay until they came to pick me up. I forgot and took the school bus. Risking embarrassment, I decided to depart the bus at our stop, walked to the ranch superintendent's home and asked him to drive me to the principal's house which was near a home he often visited.

I lied to the principal that when he went looking for me I must have been in the restroom. I lied to my parents why it took me so long to reach the principal's home.

"You took the bus, didn't you?" my mother who knew everything asked.

"No," I mumbled.

The Love/Hate Obits of Ted Kennedy

The real journalists in America, those who record the first chapter in the books of history, are challenged writing obituaries of our fallen leaders when the person's life is filled with complexities, contradictions and accomplishments such as that of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Citizen journalists, those who write blogs, are not constraint by such niceties. They call it as they see it. They come straight to the point. The guy was flawed. The guy was a hero. Etc. A classic example is The Moderate Voice's esteemed columnist and assistant editor Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estes who writes a poignant dark aspect of Kennedy's life that drew some 30 comments from readers within hours after her posting.

Old journalistic practices have fallen by the wayside in today's instant news markets. No longer does one wait at least until the person is buried before the dirty laundry is aired. In the case of Kennedy, who matured and graduated to the most skilled advocate of his causes in the Senate during his 47-year career, speculation was immediate who would replace him.

But, old practices and customs do not die rapidly. We see that from the eulogies spoken by friends and foes alike, just as in the old days. Some examples:

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona:

My friend, Ted Kennedy, was famous before he was accomplished.
But by the end of his life he had become irreplaceable in the institution he loved and in the affections of its members. He grew up in the long shadow of his brothers, but found a way to be useful to his country in ways that will outlast their accomplishments.

Many of his fellow senators, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, will note today that Ted was sincerely intent on finding enough common ground among us to make progress on the issues of our day, and toward that end he would work as hard and as modestly as any staffer. Many will recall his convivial nature, his humor, his thoughtfulness. We will praise as his greatest strength the integrity of his word. When he made a promise to you, he kept it, no matter what.

What is harder for us to express is the emptiness we will feel in the Senate in his absence. Even when we are all crowded in the chamber for a vote, engaged in dozens of separate conversations, it will seem a quiet and less interesting place, in the knowledge that his booming voice, fueled by his passion for his convictions, will never encourage or assail or impress us again.

I will miss him very much.

----------------------------------------------------

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York:

Ted Kennedy was a mentor, a guiding light, and a close friend — we all loved the man. In the Senate, Ted Kennedy was our sun –- the center of our universe. To be pulled by his strong gravitational field, to bask in his warmth was a privilege, an honor, and, for many of us, even a life changing experience. His death leaves our world dark but, as he said in his own words, “the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.” Ted, we will not let your flag fall.

---------------------------------------------------------------

In the days leading up to the end of his terminal battle with brain cancer, politics, being the cold-hearted beast that it is, raised its ugly head with critics speculating the absence of Kennedy represented a moral hole in the Democrats push to reform our nation's health care system.

Now that the 77-year-old Lion of the Senate is gone, the speculation has shifted to a rallying cry from the liberal Democrats to win one for Teddy. This leads us to the loudest mouth from the conservative ranks, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Here is part of a story filed by ABC's Sarah Tobianski:

On his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh had some harsh words for Democrats reacting to Senator Kennedy's death today. Limbaugh argued that if the Democrats are able to pass a so-called "rationed" health care plan in Kennedy's memory, it would be "hypocrisy and "insulting."

"Ted Kennedy did not use any aspect of that health care legislation to try to survive," Limbaugh said. "It would be an insult to the memory of Ted Kennedy to put his name on a bill that has rationed health care based on someone's age and the extent of their illness."

Limbaugh said that he is probably right in his earlier prediction that Democrats will use Kennedy's death as a "pawn" to push through their health care agenda.

"The Left is exploiting him – his death and his legacy – and they are going to do it, as predicted, to push health care through," Limbaugh said...

Limbaugh said he was cracking up this morning on the mainstream media's coverage of Kennedy's passing and said that his listeners are frustrated over the "slobbering" media.

"No matter where you watch television today – even if you turn on FOX – you are going to get the syrupy - everything they say is going to be predictable: let's put aside our differences for today and respect the great work and achievements of Sen. Kennedy," Limbaugh said. " I am going to vomit and puke all over everyone with this analysis today."

Limbaugh said he took the greatest insult to Chris Matthew's words on the Today Show this morning, where Matthews said Sen. Kennedy handed the "ball over" to President Obama, calling the President "the last Kennedy brother." He said the media is more concerned about keeping Camelot alive.

"The media, they are not concerned the Kennedy's gone but, oh no, where do we go next to Lion-ize the next Kennedy?" Limbaugh said.

The greatest tribute to Kennedy, Limbaugh said, would be for all Americans to get the same health care that Kennedy received in his final days.

Am I reading this right? It is unclear to me what he's talking about in terms of rationed care. Yet, Limbaugh wants all Americans to receive the same health care privileges as Senator Kennedy. You mean Rush is in favor of reform, after all the slings and arrows he's tossed at the Democrats?

If that's true, Kennedy did not live his life in vain.

After all, if it takes the death of a passionate advocate to change the world as we know it, than may his soul reach eternity and absolve all the demons that tagged behind.

Of all the statements I have read today, this one epitomizes the tribute to one small aspect of Kennedy's life:

Nancy Reagan, wife of former President Ronald Reagan:

Given our political differences, people are sometimes surprised by how close Ronnie and I have been to the Kennedy family. But Ronnie and Ted could always find common ground, and they had great respect for one another. In recent years, Ted and I found our common ground in stem cell research, and I considered him an ally and a dear friend. I will miss him.

Edward M. Kennedy, may you rest in peace.

Little League Is Awesome, Despite The Hype

As I write this, Chula Vista, Calif., is about to play San Antonio in a preliminary round of undefeated teams in the Little League World Series in South Williamsport, Penn. The Chula Vista all-star team is the equivalent of the 1927 Yankees. They slugged 46 home runs in their last eight games and shutout their first two World Series opponents 29-0.

Sally Jenkins, the renowned sports columnist for The Washington Post, is not impressed. While she admires the talent of the Park View team from Southern California, she abhors the national spotlight on the youngsters in a system she says "has badly confused teaching kids to be good ballplayers with teaching them to be good people."

Jenkins offers two flaws, one at the players; the other at Little League rules. The kids copy cat their Major League heroes by spitting, scratching and grandstanding. She blames ESPN and ABC which televise the series as the main enablers.

The league's 85-pitch rule is too high, citing orthopedic surgeon James Andrews' description of an "epidemic" of arm and shoulder injuries to young ballplayers. "Andrews has been keeping tabs: in 2001 and 2002 he performed a total of just 13 shoulder operations on teenagers. Over the next six years, he did 241," Jenkins writes.

Let me offer a counterpoint.

I played youth baseball and the great thrill, the great goal was following in the footsteps of my heroes of which I read in the newspaper from stories and box scores and the few limited newsreels in the movie theaters. Much of the glory was verbal, passed on to us kids from radio voices such as Bob Kelly announcing Los Angeles Angels games in the old Pacific Coast League and I am certain from Red Barber announcing Dodger games in Brooklyn. If I spit too often, I had to.

I was smitten by the gods of baseball. The Saturday Evening Post and Collier's magazines carried full-page ads of Whitey Ford proclaiming he would walk a mile for a Camel cigarette. So, I began smoking cigarettes at age 13 even though it didn't improve my curve ball.

There were no 85-pitch rules in my day. Coaches instructed how to throw a curve ball. One former minor league pitcher coaching part-time at my high school tried to teach me how to throw both a knuckle ball and a split-fingered fast ball. My fingers and hands were too small, so we nixed that idea. But, I threw hard and often, never once feeling pain in my right arm or elbow. That injury occurred between my senior year in high school and college when I dislocated my right shoulder spiking a beach volleyball. It ended my baseball career.

Although not as critical as it is in playing football, baseball is a team sport and you learn quickly to back up your teammates on any given play. Baseball teaches you a little about life, anticipating what you will do if the ball comes to you depending on the number of base runners, how many outs and what inning and score it is.

Little League requires every player to be in the game for at least one inning and it instills a sense of sportsmanship win or lose. Crying is okay. That's the essence of the game and what happens to the players after they grow into maturity is not the flaws as Jenkins sees them by blaming Little League as an organization.

Every year at Little League World Series time I am incredibly impressed by the athletic skills of these 11, 12 and 13-year-olds from around the world. How they handle the immense emotional pressure to excel is just short of amazing.

If that was me on the mound or playing right field, I probably would pee in my pants.

Two Rival States Duke It Out

At least one California legislator has retaliated with a popgun attack against Nevada's million dollar ad campaign to lure Golden State businesses to the Silver State.

What started as a tongue-in-cheek snarky campaign by Nevada which has inundated the major California markets via cable television advertising the past two weeks is now being greeted by Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana) who told The Los Angeles Times:

"It's one thing to compare states in a factual way, but when you're doing nasty ads veiled in humor which dehumanize Californians, that's over the top."

The Nevada spots compare California legislators to monkeys, portraying two apples in which one representing California turns rotten because of its high taxes, and a pretty blonde lady who extols the virtues of California but by the ad's ending, she turns into a pig wearing lipstick.

Taking undisclosed funds from his campaign committee treasury, Solorio launched his own multi-media blitz proclaiming "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but what happens in California makes the world go 'round."

The spots will show up on newspaper websites, Google ad sites, Facebook and e-mails, as well as on cable channels in Los Angeles, Orange County, Sacramento, Las Vegas and Reno, Solorio said.

Said A. Somer Hollingsworth, chief executive of the Nevada Development Authority: "I understand what they're going through, and I expected something like this. I'm not offended -- it's a good response."

Both states are suffering severe economic setbacks because of the recession. Gambling revenues in Nevada are down dramatically which pay for public services in a state with no personal income tax.

Touting California's massive consumer base, sunny weather and progressive entrepreneurial culture, Solorio said California's budget and tax problems and strict regulations should not be deal breakers for businesses.

Rivalry between California and its neighboring states is nothing novel. Years ago, Oregon posted signs on its highways near the California border welcoming visitors but asking them please don't move in.