Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Words Do Have Meaning: Liberals and Boycotting Arizona

San Diego officials who jumped on the Grijalva "Boycott Arizona" bandwagon may have to eat their words come election time. It seems Arizonans, who fill San Diego hotels in the summer, are creating a grassroots boycott of their own. San Diego hotels send word that Arizonans are canceling reservation to the economically beleaguered city in response to votes by San Diego city council and school board officials to end trips to the Grand Canyon state.
"Community activists" turned politicians need to understand that words have meaning. Grijalva continues to sidestep and categorize his call for a boycott of Arizona as a convention destination, saying it was a "targeted call." But liberal politicians continue to jump on his bandwagon, costing Arizona an estimated $10 million in business. Arizona will not be nearly as damaged by this as California, which depends on Arizona for everything from airline travel to water and power.

Unfortunately for these mind-numbingly arrogant officials, their constituents remember words, especially when those words hurt at the economically personal level. In an unofficial poll conducted by the LA Times, readers were asked:
"Was the L.A. City Council right to pass a boycott of Arizona?" Here are the results:
Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 2.1% (378 votes) 
Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. 0.4% (64 votes) 
No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 4.2% (771 votes) 
No. The city should mind its own business. 93.4% (17,030 votes) 
Does Grijalva and his ilk really think that his community organizing threats will work on the national level where economies are intertwined to such extent that an economic pissing contest hurts everyone? Does he care? Apparently not.
 UPDATE:
this week Arizona corporation commissioner Gary Pierce has threatened to cut off Arizona power purchased by the city of Los Angeles based on LA's Villaraigosa's push for ending contracts with Arizona:
"Doggone it -- if you're going to boycott this candy store ... then don't come in for any of it," Pierce told FoxNews.com. 
In the letter, he ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to "send a message" by severing the "resources and ties" they share. 
"I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the 'resources and ties' we share with the city of Los Angeles," Pierce wrote. 
"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation." 
Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott. 
"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."
Seeing as how 70% of Californians are supportive of Arizona's new law (including, apparently Coach Phil Jackson ), seems like the LA city council is on shakey ground.

1 comment: